People that corrupt a process are often the ones it’s designed to stop. It’s not even done with ill intent more often than not.

How do you create a paradigm or process that can be amended adapt to a persistent threat without that amendment process itself being used as a tool to corrupt it?

I completely agree that you don’t need to assume ill intent. But by that same token, the fact that a paradigm or process isn’t invulnerable does not mean that it shouldn’t be used.

Bureaucracy, heavyweight process, and all rest are ways that systems protect themselves. Wasteful though, which is why new paradigms such as Agile come along.

Now the Agile ecosystem has become corrupted by a process not comparable to all the above. Not solvable by those means either. It’s a toughie.