Neurotransparency Doctrine
The Neurotransparency Doctrine defines why cognitive provenance, traceability, and accountability are epistemically required in AI–human research.
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 is normative. It establishes epistemic necessity, not implementation details.
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.
Relationship to the Aurora Stack
The Neurotransparency Doctrine occupies Layer 0 (Epistemics) in the Aurora Hierarchy. It does not enforce rules, define workflows, or validate artifacts.
- ARI (L0): Converts doctrine into binding institutional authority.
- AWO (L1): Structures doctrine-aligned reasoning workflows.
- CRI-CORE (L4): Enforces upstream contracts mechanically.
- Case Studies (L6): Demonstrate doctrine-aligned research in practice.
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
- Doctrine (Zenodo DOI): 10.5281/zenodo.17957384
- Doctrine Repository: Waveframe-Labs/Neurotransparency-Doctrine
- Specification (NTS): View specification overview