NODE & NORM
What evidence establishes that governance had practical force?
Node & Norm develops research methods, evidence records, and reference implementations for examining human authority and institutional control in AI-mediated decisions. The work asks what reviewers can reconstruct, which conclusions the evidence supports, and where uncertainty remains.
| Project | Question or function | Start here |
|---|---|---|
| Trust, Autonomy & Evidence (TAE) | What supports justified reliance and practical human control? | Research repository · Releases |
| Human Influence Telemetry (HIT) | What do records establish about the exercise of human authority? | Method and implementation · Releases |
| Project | Role | Repository |
|---|---|---|
| Governed Decision Intelligence (GDI) | General decision-record specification and reference implementation | governed-decision-intelligence |
| AI Assistance Governance | Method/profile for bounded AI participation, assigned human authority, and dependency assessment | rgds-ai-governance |
| Regulated Gate Decision Support (RGDS) | Regulated phase-gate reference implementation | rgds |
| RGDS independent study | Historical and exploratory research supporting the decision-governance program | Study repository · Read the study |
The hierarchy is GDI's general decision architecture, the AI Assistance Governance profile, and RGDS's regulated reference implementation. The independent study retains its own research record.
Catholic Doctrinal Fidelity Index (CDFI) provides evaluation-governance methodology and a reference implementation for domain-specific doctrinal assessment. Scoring-contract reconciliation remains open. SAICRED is an external collaborative project with its own leadership and publication authority.
| Work | Question and status |
|---|---|
| Institutional Responsibility & Repair | What does an institution owe after AI-mediated harm? Poenitentia Institutionum develops the normative argument; empirical outcome validation remains open. Its research repository is private. |
| Incident Reconstruction & Assurance | What can the surviving record establish about an incident and the controls available? An emerging question across the three programs. |
| Control Evidence Corpus (CEC) | Can independent reviewers reconstruct control operation from surviving evidence? Private development infrastructure; independent empirical validation remains pending. |
These emerging areas preserve the website's three permanent research programs. The website Registry owns presentation identities and admitted summaries. Each research repository retains its own source and release authority.
Applied AI Research Translator turns research inputs into traceable claims, bounded tasks, and decision records subject to human review.
How the repositories relate
Each project maintains its own scope, versioning, validation status, and releases. The developing Control Evidence Corpus is intended to supply canonical empirical records for downstream work in TAE, HIT, RGDS, and future studies. That integration remains prospective and must preserve source dependence, missingness, and exact-version provenance.
Shared organizational ownership supplies no additional validity to a method or result. A claim about one project's validation must be assessed against that project's reported evidence and limitations.
Start with a project's README and research-status statement, then inspect its versioned release, source provenance, and validation instructions. Use that repository's contribution and correction process. Cite its authors and exact artifact version; organizational stewardship preserves those credits.
Research led by Mark Julius Banasihan. Public repositories retain their individual licenses and attribution requirements.