Hello. As author of this theory I'm joining this discussion.

"to only address fraud and deception"
Well, no, there is more than this : the power structure I described, distinguishes several categories of power that can be delegated to different people in a systematic way, so that it is an effective organizational structure to deal with different issues:
- systems of qualifications (diplomas)
- research on legislative issues (on environmental and other issues of right and wrong and which rules would be needed)
- attribution of financial resources for public interest operations (though it could be feared too weak as initially relying on donations, for standing competition with state expenses... if we forget that states are currently running to bankruptcy)
- Financial investment decisions (granting credit in someone's name)
- Judgment in difficult conflicts, or where one is not directly involved in
...

"uses an elaborate mixture of organizations and computer systems to solve a problem people can mostly just work out on their own"

More precisely, it rebuilds an organizational structure through an efficient use of computer systems. The point is to address those problems that are involving too many people (and/or people whose contact would otherwise not be under hand), which for this reason could not yet be just worked out by people on their own. And do it by systematically putting together the needed information which will finally make it possible for people to apply their own free judgment and action, possibly through delegates when needed, for solving the problems.

"And then it completely ignores the state's monopoly on violent retribution"
What do you mean by "ignore" ? I focus on a large category of problems and how they can be resolved independently of the presence or absence of any violent retribution system; and that this is a so important quantity of things that the effects of these "soft" solutions will finally turn out to be heavier than the ordinary use of force by democratic states (well the case of non-democratic countries will be harder but...), and will ultimately absorb that use of force in it.

Some discussions implicitly assume the old list of political theories as the only available alternatives, thus are made obsolete by this proposition of another solution.
I don't feel concerned with the question "state monopoly of force or not" since my proposition develops on another level that makes the question of force somewhat irrelevant.
Namely, it would first focus on handling a large range of problems that I would qualify as indeed political but without disputing or requiring interaction with the current state power, as these are political problems of a kind that does not enter the category of problems that the state ever tried to manage: too small and not formal enough problems to ever reach any bureaucrat's desk, but of still quite real and heavy importance once summed up, relativizing as anecdotal the question of what to do with state force. Need examples ?

To talk about "enforcement mechanism" : I offer one that can be effective without need of force. Because it is an enforcement on money, but money is a mere information (a social convention), which can be "forced" by the mere play of information interaction without need of any physical force. See for this the beginning of my text on money.