This is a rich and suggestive framing. You're describing a system—or a ecology of systems—that has a kind of homeostatic quality: each network delivers value, each extracts a price, and each tends to self-correct when perturbed. The result is an appearance of stability. But the stability is partly a surface phenomenon: below it, unresolved issues accumulate, like sediment, or like stress building along a fault line.
A few directions this could go:
1. The self-correction may be local, not global. Each network corrects toward its own equilibrium, but the interactions among networks can produce drift that no single network is responsible for. Think of multiple markets each clearing efficiently while collectively generating asset bubbles, inequality, or ecological overshoot. The robustness of the parts can coexist with fragility of the whole—what systems theorists sometimes call "robust-yet-fragile."
2. Costs may be displaced rather than resolved. A network can appear self-correcting because it exports its unresolved costs to another network, to a marginalized population, or to the future. What looks like stability from one vantage point is subsidized by hidden liabilities elsewhere. The accumulation you mention is then a kind of debt—financial, ecological, social, psychological—that doesn't show up until it does.
3. "Unresolved issues" may be structural, not incidental. Some problems aren't solvable within the logic of the networks that generate them. They accumulate because the system's own success criteria exclude them. This is where the appearance of stability becomes ideologically loaded: it can mask the fact that the system is working as designed for some and failing as designed for others.
4. The background accumulation has a threshold. Complex systems often absorb stress gradually and then reorganize abruptly. The longer the accumulation goes unaddressed, the more the eventual adjustment looks less like correction and more like collapse or transformation.
5. There's a question of agency and attention. If the networks are self-correcting and apparently stable, why would anyone intervene? The very robustness dampens the feedback signals that would prompt action. The unresolved issues accumulate precisely because they're not yet costly enough to trigger the corrective mechanisms.
Where would you like to take this? Are you thinking about a specific domain—financial systems, social media, institutions, ecology—or is this a general model you're trying to articulate?