This article advances a critical intervention in Science and Technology Studies by examining temporal design as a site of political struggle in algorithmic governance. Working within the tradition of critical technical practice-and responding to recent calls for its pluralisation-we develop Algorithmic Hysteresis Primacy (AHP) as a conceptual framework that introduces synthetic inertia into computational systems: architectural resistance to acceleration that creates mandatory cognitive buffering intervals for human deliberation. Against the pervasive acceleration imperative that equates speed with optimization, AHP makes visible how speed functions as a form of power, and how constitutive hesitation can reconfigure spaces for contestation and oversight. The framework operates through provocative specifications-formal specifications, protocol grammars, and mathematically guaranteed delays-that translate ethical discourse into architecturally legible forms without claiming empirical validation. Through conceptual analysis of paradigmatic failures and contemporary welfare systems in the Global South, we demonstrate how temporal pathologies emerge when systems operate faster than human comprehension, regulatory intervention, or democratic contestation. AHP serves primarily as a diagnostic tool for revealing temporal asymmetries in global technological systems, particularly from peripheral epistemic locations where speed often operates as imposed temporality. The framework is situated within a pluriversal landscape of temporal epistemologies. We engage with recent articulations of AI sovereignty from Africa, Latin America, and Asia. These dialogues demonstrate that the search for temporal sovereignty is not a peripheral idiosyncrasy but an emergent Global South political consensus demanding architectural expression. This contributes to STS debates on infrastructural politics by demonstrating how time itself can be designed as territory of governance and resistance, and advances critical technical practice by showing how technical specification can materialize political critique without solutionist pretensions. We explicitly address the framework's ambivalences: between critique and solution, between universal 1 and particular temporalities, between technocratic expertise and democratic participation.