Waveframe Labs
Published Research Doctrine — Stable

Neurotransparency Doctrine

The Neurotransparency Doctrine defines why cognitive provenance, traceability, and accountability are epistemically required in AI–human research.

Current status · 2026-09-01

The Doctrine is preserved as published epistemic research. It may inform future provenance and disclosure work, but the current Waveframe product does not claim to implement it.

What the Doctrine Defines

As AI systems increasingly participate in reasoning, cognition itself becomes a scientific variable. The Neurotransparency Doctrine asserts that research claims cannot be meaningfully evaluated unless the cognitive processes—human and artificial—that produced them are explicitly traceable.

This doctrine establishes an epistemic rationale, not implementation details or present product requirements.

Core Epistemic Principles

  • Traceability: Cognitive influence must be attributable to identifiable sources.
  • Attribution: Human and AI contributions must be distinguishable.
  • Reconstructibility: Claims must be reproducible from recorded inputs and transformations.
  • Epistemic continuity: Breaks in provenance invalidate downstream claims.
  • Accountability: Responsibility follows cognitive influence.

Original Aurora Relationship

The Neurotransparency Doctrine occupies Layer 0 (Epistemics) in the Aurora Hierarchy. It does not enforce rules, define workflows, or validate artifacts.

This relationship records the original Aurora architecture. Current product components do not claim Doctrine compliance without a future explicit, versioned adoption decision.

Doctrine vs. Specification

The Neurotransparency Doctrine defines epistemic necessity. The Neurotransparency Specification (NTS) defines enforceable requirements derived from that necessity.

In short: the doctrine answers why traceability is required; the specification defines what must be satisfied.

Canonical References