Violating directive governance’s preconditions predicts degraded performance cushioned by market position, not immediate collapse. Large tech companies operate as effective oligopolies with search monopolies, network effects, ecosystem lock-in, and infrastructure moats. They generate revenue regardless of governance quality. Directive governance is a tax on performance, not a fatal flaw, when monopoly rents absorb the cost. The question is not “has directive governance failed?” but “is it degrading what’s possible?” The evidence (Microsoft’s lost decade, Google+, Twitter/X, OpenAI) says yes. Directive governance companies do not necessarily collapse. They languish: profitable enough to survive, too poorly governed to innovate.