Predictive infrastructures do not regulate the present; they operate by formatting the future. Through algorithmic scheduling, anticipatory coordination, and recursive modeling, control systems act before disruption, not in response to it. In platforms managing flood protection and energy regulation, governance is no longer defined by reaction but by projection. Time is rendered operational, detached from experience and reconstructed as a condition to be modeled, calculated, and aligned. Yet infrastructure persists within durations that exceed that logic. Materials degrade, ecological cycles diverge, institutional action slows, and historical processes remain unfinished. What emerges is not simply a gap between models and systems, but a structural conflict between competing temporal regimes. This conflict is examined here as an epistemological tension internal to contemporary predictive systems. Rather than presenting new empirical data, the study develops a critical synthesis of infrastructural discourse grounded in sociocybernetics, systems theory, and the political epistemology of anticipatory governance. Methodologically, this involves combining conceptual synthesis with an analysis of Istanbul’s governance corpus to trace how predictive operations intersect with infrastructural and institutional tempos. Three recurring patterns of discord appear across energy and environmental systems: mechanical latency, where physical infrastructures cannot operate at algorithmic pace; representational compression, where modeling reduces situated variability; and procedural asynchrony, where institutional rhythms resist predictive synchronization. These frictions do not indicate the need for greater alignment but reveal the structural thresholds at which predictive governance encounters temporal plurality. Recognizing such thresholds shifts attention from synchronization to the ways in which infrastructural and institutional tempos coexist with predictive cadence. This perspective situates temporal conflict as a constitutive element of anticipatory governance and highlights the need for approaches that work with, rather than suppress, heterogeneous temporal regimes.