Col. Jones,

No, the objective is for the Governance of a particular populace to gain a better understanding and empathy for the concerns of their own populace; and to rededicate themselves to meeting those needs.
You can't have justice or governance without control. Justice, for instances, is about picking winners and losers and if you don't have power to enforce decisions (and prevent other justice systems from enforcing theirs) then it isn't justice or governance. As I said before, I think control/power is a necessary element of legitimacy. And while we do want government to be responsive to the needs of the populace, there are limits to this. Governments, for instance, rarely give up control of a population even if that would be in that population's best interest. This is not necessarily despotism since the government may genuinely believe that keeping that population under their control is for the best.

Similarly, what if the concern of the populace is for the governance to GTFO? What if the populace doesn't want your governance - what if they want someone elses or their own? Since your model places complete responsibility on the governance and not on the populace, how can better governance fill this kind of "need?"

This brings me back to a subject I keep raising: irreconcilable differences between two or more populations under a one system of governance. I don't think you've answered yet, but I am still wondering how you account for that.

Consider separatist insurgencies, which you've talked a bit about elsewhere. If minority ethnicity X does not want to live under a government controlled by majority ethnicity Y, then how can "better governance" solve that disconnect?

The insurgency and the insurgent are merely symptoms that come in many flavors. As you say popualaces are diverse. One can see this in Afghanistan as there are actually multiple insurgencies going on. But they are all in response to the failures of ONE government.
After some additional thought, I see a major flaw in your model in that it doesn't account for where governance takes place. In reality, there is rarely ONE government. Where governance occurs within a system of governance matters, so perhaps governance is best seen as a system.

Consider the US experience and the constant tension between local, state and federal power and authority. Additionally, what counts for "governance" for one population is, for a different population, handled through non-governmental means (such as religious institutions).

Your model appears to treat highly centralized and highly decentralized governance equally.

Also, I think your views expressed here on the relationship between governance and the populace has the effect of infantilizing the populace. You've explicitly stated that the governance is wholly responsible for the governance provided. However, in the absence of governance, a population will create its own system so how can the population hold no responsibility? Here's where I see a major internal disconnect in your arguments. On one hand, you've compellingly argued about self-determination and the centrality of the populace. On the other hand, you seem to argue that that the populace isn't responsible for their governance and that effective governance is best delivered through a technocratic top-down approach by determining what the populace wants and then providing that want.