Organizational Meaning Science: Expanding the ITES™ Framework -Interpretive Continuity and the Six-Dimension Model of Interpretive Alignment

<p><span>Organizations routinely misread the</span><span>interpretive states of their members—labeling resistance what is in fact groundedness and treating compliance as evidence of alignment. Prior work in Organizational Meaning Science introduced the ITES™ (Interpretation Through Experience Scale) as a five-dimension instrument for measuring the interpretive conditions under which organizational alignment forms or fails (deBien-Trammell, 2026a). This paper extends the framework by introducing a sixth dimension—Interpretive Continuity (IC)—and expanding the instrument’s interpretive cluster typology to five clusters. Interpretive Continuity is defined as the degree to which an individual’s accumulated interpretive history—drawn from organizational tenure, role experience, or industry familiarity—functions as a stabilizing or resistant force when new signals, strategies, or methodologies are introduced. The paper develops the theoretical basis for IC, examines its relationship to the five existing ITES™ dimensions, and introduces the five interpretive clusters—Anchored™, Searching™, Fragmenting™, Withdrawn™, and Self-Anchored™—as the diagnostic typology through which ITES™ scores are interpreted in organizational practice. Particular attention is given to the Self-Anchored cluster, which represents a critical and previously unnamed condition in organizational change management. The paper also introduces the SUPA framework—Seeing. Understanding. Predicting. Acting.™—as the applied logic through which the six-dimension ITES™ instrument moves from measurement to organizational intervention. Together, these extensions advance the ITES™ from a five-dimension diagnostic tool into a comprehensive six-dimension model of interpretive alignment capable of supporting more precise organizational diagnosis, prediction, and leadership response.</span></p>