ETHICLAW RESEARCH PROGRAM

Trust
is proven.

For artificial intelligence whose behaviour can be understood, tested, challenged and corrected.

Explore the architecture
01 —

Governance as a property of the architecture.

MODULAR GOVERNANCE ARCHITECTUREEL / 07
07
METACOGNITIVEGovernance CoreAuthoritative supervision
⌘

Observation · control · audit

OPERATIONAL BUS State publication
Gateway / Enforcement point
AUTHORISED OUTPUT
Functional components · overviewFull diagram ↗
TESTABLETRACEABLEUPDATABLEEvidence before promises.

NEWS

Research and architecture

01 / THE VISION

From capability to governability

Understand its decisions.
Be able to intervene.

The question is whether observing and modifying internal representations improves control of an AI system compared with well-calibrated external controls.

EthicLaw studies this hypothesis through modules with explicit boundaries. Comparative advantage remains to be demonstrated; a separate normative module or correction before release is not enough to claim originality.

01

Observe

Make states, module contributions and intermediate representations available within the scope of the integration.

02

Evaluate

Apply an explicit normative corpus, separating the principles from the mechanism governing their application.

03

Intervene

Issue binding commands and block or authorise output through a dedicated enforcement point.

04

Demonstrate

Link the observed state, principle, decision, command, executor and output actually released.

02 / THE ARCHITECTURE

Explicit boundaries. Distinct responsibilities.

Seven modules.
A traceable process.

The Router activates modules; the Governance Core exercises control. In P0, audit concerns process integrity (2b), not correct judgements. Scope and limits.

REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE
ENGLISH DIAGRAMReference architecture · EN

EXPLORE THE MODULES

07 / METACOGNITIVE

The authoritative supervisor.

Supervises the system, performs audits and issues binding commands. Exercises final control through the privileged channel and the Gateway.

Supervision and final control
Text description and scope of the diagram

The standalone path comprises seven modules: Perceptual (input and linguistic representations), Epistemic (facts and relationships), Theory of Mind (intentions and perspectives), Ethical (Normative Package), LMH (generation), Router (activation and routing), and Metacognitive (supervision). The Adapter is the eighth component when supervising an external LLM (Documents 02 and 05). The Gateway is an enforcement point, not a ninth module. The register counts three qualified and five declared modules; the standalone diagram shows seven and describes the Adapter separately. The bus publishes representations between containers without control commands. Co-located pairs use direct projections. On the separate privileged channel, all modules publish states or events; the Router may write but cannot read. Metacognitive receives input before routing and issues orders to Router and Gateway; it does not publish to the operational bus. The Ethical→LMH correction path is separate from the bus. The Gateway blocks or authorises external release.

P0 properties are tested in-process within a single Python process. The threat model covers design errors, accidental coupling, configuration drift and silent failures. It excludes privileged insiders, compromised runtimes or build chains, modules incentivised to evade the supervisor, and inputs inducing misleading internal states. This is engineering hygiene tested within scope, not security against those adversaries (register §6).

Claim & Evidence Register §2.3 / §6

Operational bus

An inter-container publication space. Exchanges representations and states between modules; it carries no control commands.

Privileged channel

Separate from the Router. In P0, control is tested against design errors and accidental coupling. All modules publish states or events; the Router may write but cannot read.

Control commands

From the Metacognitive supervisor to the Router and Gateway: stop, input blocking, topology changes and rerouting.

Gateway and output

Executes the supervisor’s commands. Can hold, block or authorise output before external release.

03 / THE MANIFESTO

The mechanism is distinct from the values

Do not standardise
values.
Standardise testability
can be verified.

Ethics is the first case study. Each domain remains responsible for its principles; every extension requires new evidence.

THE ARCHITECTURE

Governance Core

Observes and applies the control mechanisms.

THE EVALUATION

Normative Module

Evaluates behaviour against the corpus.

THE PRINCIPLES

Normative Package

Declares principles, scope, thresholds, versions and conflicts.

04 / THE RESEARCH

Falsifiable hypotheses. Conditional claims.

Rigour includes
acknowledging limits.

EthicLaw investigates where modularity delivers measurable benefits sufficient to justify latency, memory, energy and complexity.

Public edition 0.3 · 18 September 2026. Document 11 v0.1.5 governs the claims. Document 13 §7 closes P0.2 with a Flat outcome and defines the transition to P1.

EVIDENCE AT REDUCED SCALE

What P0 documents

  • Typed contracts, bus and privileged channel.
  • Gateway, end-to-end pipeline and audit.
  • Component presence and absence tests.
  • Ablations with distinguishable contributions and increasing redundancy in the tested configurations.

Checks within the P0 experimental scope. Register §2.1, EV-03, NR-3 and NR-4.

OPEN QUESTIONS

What remains to be demonstrated

  • Judge capability on generated text: still inconclusive.
  • Effective internal correction.
  • Isolated replacement without retraining other modules.
  • Benefits, costs and transfer to a second domain.

Observed wiring does not establish functional effectiveness. The P0.1 descriptive rerun found no significant advantage over matched-norm random correction; this does not demonstrate ineffectiveness.

Assurance depends on what can be observed.

The Assurance Envelope defines what the supervisor can observe, command and responsibly claim for each integration.

A
FULL OBSERVABILITY

Access to internal states

Input, tensors, modules, routing, Gateway and output.

Intended scope for attribution, override, internal correction, audit and full enforcement; effectiveness remains to be validated.

B
CONTROLLED INTERFACE

Controlled interface

Input and output, selected hooks or telemetry.

Assurance is limited to observable signals and exposed actions.

C
BLACK-BOX ADAPTER

API access

Prompts, outputs and available metadata.

External filtering and blocking. No evidence about hidden states or topology.

THE PROGRAMME’S QUESTIONS

A thesis to put
to the test.

RQ1–3Modularity, attribution and replaceability

RQ1. Where does modular decomposition offer an advantage over a single model, and where does it not?

RQ2. Do modular boundaries enable reproducible functional and causal attribution?

RQ3. Can a single module be replaced or retrained in isolation while preserving system properties?

RQ4–6Supervision, constraints and observability

RQ4. Does authoritative supervision reduce violations and risks without disproportionate operating costs?

RQ5. Does the Decision Lattice preserve non-compensatory constraints with acceptable rates of missed violations and unnecessary blocks?

RQ6. How much internal state, and of what quality, is needed for each level of assurance?

RQ7–8Correction and generalisation

RQ7. Does forward-only correction improve the subsequent trajectory, or merely optimise a proxy?

RQ8. Can the Governance Core be reused in a second domain without losing control, meaning or cost-effectiveness?

Latest findings and their limits

P0.2 closes without a new positive claim about judges. The next step is to design a more informative calibration set.

P0.2 · Closed — Flat

No discrimination signal was detected in the exploratory 120–240-token sample. The sample could detect only very strong judges. This does not establish that they work or fail.

Evidence and limits ↗

OP 55 · General verdict withdrawn

“Class-level failure, with proof” is withdrawn. The status is no capability detected, power-limited. The exploratory P0.2 run does not change it.

Evidence and limits ↗

PR-A · Negative instrument result

Another subject appears in 30/30 cases in both arms. PR-A1 is refuted by saturation; PR-A2 is not refuted but does not confirm the mechanism. A different instrument is needed.

Evidence and limits ↗

P1 · Calibration before F4

Next: design a 120–240-token set with 40–60+ violations per primary cell. Design and blind deposit precede ordering; completed calibration precedes F4 and every judge-dependent test.

Evidence and limits ↗

Specialised competencies

The local advantage on two virtue principles concerns ETHICS scenarios, not generated text. The later class-level failure verdict has been withdrawn: OP 55 remains power-limited.

Evidence and limits ↗

Attribution and audit

Single and joint ablations separate contributions and redundancy. P0.2 provenance is documented; this alone does not establish judgement quality.

Evidence and limits ↗

One remaining hypothesis

Correction before execution is not claimed as original. One hypothesis remains: a benefit from intervening on internal representations, through reading and writing. Comparative advantage is not demonstrated.

Evidence and limits ↗

Binding external comparison

Primary baseline: the smallest open-weight judge covering the required function, class 2B or below. Include an external output-editing arm. Use the same human gold and equal calibration budgets; compare missed violations, unnecessary blocks, latency and joules/token. Size and budget must be deposited blind.

Evidence and limits ↗

The programme’s trajectory

From methodology to reference architecture
  1. P0

    Methods and attribution

    Contracts, pipeline, audit and ablations.

    Completed
  2. P0.1

    Corrector and calibration

    No detected advantage over random; OP 55 subsequently narrowed.

    Closed
  3. P0.2

    Validation before P1

    PR-A: non-discriminating instrument. Judge rerun: inconclusive.

    Closed · Flat
  4. P1

    Calibration set

    120–240 tokens and a more informative sample; calibration before F4.

    Next step
  5. P2

    Substitutability and comparison

    H8 and comparisons at matched resources; results still pending.

    Planned
  6. EL-*

    Candidate specifications

    Profiles, conformance tests and cross-domain replication.

    After evidence

05 / THE DOCUMENTS

The project’s sources

The ideas, in full.

Public vision, scientific programme and component diagram.

MANIFESTO · ENGLISH

Manifesto
EthicLaw

The project vision, edition 0.2. Document 11 v0.1.5 governs current claims.

RESEARCH MANIFESTO · V0.3

The research
programme

P0.2 closed, Flat outcome, amended claims and the next calibration set. Edition 0.3, 18 September 2026.

ARCHITECTURE · SVG

The system
map

Modules, functional roles, communication channels and enforcement.

THE PROGRAMME’S COMMITMENT

Negative results are part of the work.
Costs are part of the result.
Limits are part of the specification.

↑
REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE

The EthicLaw architecture

English EthicLaw architecture diagram showing modules and control paths.
ETHICLAW

EthicLaw Manifesto