Hamish, you seem to be promoting a method of governance, based upon sortition, with your many links. After scanning them, it’s unclear what problems you are solving, or how your proposed method would address those problems. To get positive attention of this community, I you may consider posting your ideas independently, in their own thread, and let the merits of your work stand on its own.
With regard to Sociocracy, I recently suggested it to a colleague who was working within an existing corporate structure. He was able to deploy some aspects of it within his group, and he reported back that it resolved some of the accountability issues he was having. I see Sociocracy as anything but Yogababble.
My simplified view of Sociocracy: when you have nested organizational structure, it tends to become a hierarchy, preferring top-down communication over bottom-up communication. By adding redundancy to each communication link, where one person is responsible for each direction, the structure can be better balanced, restoring bottom-up information flow. Moreover, having only one person in each communication link invites sociopaths, having two people, appointed via different methods, leads to more robust linkages within the organization.