Why Neurotransparency?
The Neurotransparency Doctrine is the foundational statement of Waveframe Labs. In AI-assisted research, it is no longer sufficient to ask, “Is this result correct?” We must also ask, “How did this result come into existence, and whose cognition shaped it?”
Neurotransparency demands that the cognitive processes behind research — human and machine — be traceable, attributable, and reconstructible. Without this, reproducibility collapses into trust in an opaque assistant rather than a property that can be audited.
Core Principles
1. Cognition is an artifact
Human reasoning, AI model output, and the orchestration between them are first-class research artifacts. They must be logged, versioned, and preserved — not left implicit.
2. Attribution over mystique
Claims must be attributable to specific workflows, prompts, models, and human decisions. “The AI did it” is not an acceptable epistemic explanation.
3. Reconstructibility over performance
A slightly weaker result that can be reconstructed is epistemically stronger than a high-performing result whose provenance is unknown.
4. Governance as a first-class object
Governance is not paperwork after the fact. It is embedded from the start into methods, tools, repositories, and publications.
Relation to the Specification (NTS)
The doctrine is philosophical and justificatory. It explains why neurotransparency is necessary and what epistemic gaps it is meant to close.
The Neurotransparency Specification (NTS) is the corresponding normative standard. It turns the doctrine into operational requirements for:
- Run-level logs and manifests
- Metadata schemas and file headers
- Role separation and approvals
- Attestations and override records
Where to Read the Full Text
- Neurotransparency Doctrine — repository and PDF GitHub: Waveframe-Labs/Neurotransparency-Doctrine DOI: pending propagation.
- Neurotransparency Specification (NTS) — normative standard GitHub: Waveframe-Labs/Neurotransparency-Specification DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17809676
Downstream Impact
Every other layer in the Aurora Hierarchy is accountable to the doctrine:
- ARI must govern in a way that preserves neurotransparency.
- AWO must encode neurotransparency into its workflows and artifacts.
- CRI-CORE must enforce neurotransparency mechanically.
- Case studies must demonstrate neurotransparency in practice.
For citations, refer to the official PDFs and DOIs listed in the respective repositories.