Layer 0A — Neurotransparency Doctrine
Philosophical and justificatory foundation. Explains why cognitive integrity is required and the failure modes it is meant to prevent.
Why a hierarchy?
The Aurora Hierarchy prevents “method soup” by separating philosophy, governance, workflow logic, enforcement, examples, and tooling into distinct layers. Each layer has a clear purpose and cannot silently absorb responsibilities from another.
This page summarizes how the layers stack and where each document or repository fits.
Layers at a Glance
Layer 0B — Neurotransparency Specification (NTS)
Normative compliance standard. Defines concrete requirements for logs, metadata, role separation, attestations, and override reporting.
Layer 1 — Aurora Research Initiative (ARI)
Institutional authority. Ratifies the doctrine, adopts NTS as binding, and governs how AWO and CRI-CORE are allowed to operate.
Layer 2 — Aurora Workflow Orchestration (AWO)
Method specification. Describes roles, manifests, artifacts, approval flows, and how runs must be structured to satisfy ARI + NTS.
Layer 3 — CRI-CORE
Enforcement engine. Implements validators, provenance capture, and tamper-resistant logs that turn AWO and NTS into executable rules.
Layer 4 — Case Studies
Applied research built under the hierarchy, such as Waveframe v4.0 and the Societal Health Simulator. These demonstrate the full stack in practice.
Layer 5 — Tools & Infrastructure
Supporting tools including Waveframe PDF Forge, Stamp, metadata pipelines, validators, and publishing integrations (GitHub, Zenodo, OSF).
How Layers Depend on Each Other
- Doctrine → Spec: Doctrine explains why; Spec codifies what is required.
- Spec → ARI: ARI adopts NTS as a governing standard and sets institutional scope.
- ARI → AWO: AWO turns ARI rules into step-by-step workflow logic.
- AWO → CRI-CORE: CRI-CORE enforces AWO manifests and metadata mechanically.
- All → Case Studies: Case studies must comply with the entire hierarchy.