Throughout the process of developing the theoretical and scientific basis of Institutional Cognition, it has become necessary to use various acronyms to consolidate concepts that are used repeatedly across all our publications. To provide a quick reference guide to any of them, here is a list of all those found in our documentation and publications.
ACA — Artificial Cognitive Agent
A computational abstraction representing selected cognitive functions performed by an artificial intelligence system within a Governance Cognitive Simulation. It allows artificial cognitive capabilities to be modelled without implying human-like cognition or consciousness.
ACC — Activated Cognitive Configuration
A temporary, problem-specific configuration of cognitive nodes, capabilities, interfaces, flows and relationships activated within or around an institution. Inherited from ICAM and used by DIIF as its primary analytical unit.
ACD — Artificial Cognitive Dependency
A domain-specific diagnostic describing circumstances in which the performance of a Governance Function becomes materially dependent upon artificial or computational cognitive capacity. ACD is not a core construct of PGSF and does not by itself establish Material Reconfiguration, authority displacement or Post-Governance.
AGP — AI Governance Pilot
A bounded, governed and empirically instrumented institutional intervention designed to investigate how a specified AI-enabled cognitive configuration affects selected governance functions under real operational conditions.
AGPPF — AI Governance Pilot Programme Framework
The methodological framework for designing, governing, instrumenting, evaluating, scaling and synthesising real-world experiments involving Human–AI Institutional Cognition. It treats AI pilots as experiments in institutional cognitive architecture rather than temporary technology demonstrations.
AGPR — AI Governance Pilot Registry
A proposed research infrastructure for recording AI Governance Pilots, including their hypotheses, cognitive architectures, model provenance, evaluation methods, findings, limitations and disposition decisions.
AI — Artificial Intelligence
Computational systems capable of performing functions such as classification, retrieval, synthesis, modelling, prediction or generation. Within IDHUS research, AI is generally treated as a cognitive technology capable of augmenting institutional cognition while remaining subject to human and institutional authority.
AIA — Authority–Influence Alignment
Context-dependent evaluation of whether the influence–authority relationship is coherent with applicable legal, organisational and normative requirements.
AIG — Authority–Influence Gap
An analytically identified divergence between effective influence and formal authority, without implying failure by itself.
BCA — Baseline Cognitive Architecture
The structured representation of the cognitive configuration through which a governance function operates before an experimental intervention. It provides the reference condition against which changes introduced through an AI Governance Pilot can be interpreted.
BR — Behavioural Rule
An executable specification determining how a Governance Agent responds to selected Cognitive States, information, interactions, institutional conditions or environmental circumstances. Behavioural Rules translate theoretical or empirically grounded assumptions about agent behaviour into model dynamics.
CAGA — Cognitive Architecture–Governance Analysis
A middle-range analytical framework that independently reconstructs institutional AI governance arrangements and realised Human–AI Cognitive Configurations, compares their material correspondence, and examines how that correspondence changes over time.
CCP — Civilisational Cognitive Profile
A structured, multidimensional representation of the cognitive architecture of one or more historically bounded governance systems. CCPs support comparative historical analysis and are not intended as intelligence scores or rankings of civilisations.
CCP — Cognitive Capacity Profile
A structured representation of the cognitive capacities judged to be institutionally available for a specified governance responsibility and operating condition. In WP-F-L03-001. Distinct from Civilisational Cognitive Profile in CGEF.
CCR — Civilisational Cognitive Regime
A Civilisational Cognitive Regime can be defined as a historically constituted and institutionally distributed configuration of epistemic authorities, knowledge-legitimation principles, representation systems, circulation structures and translation mechanisms and epistemic boundaries through which complex realities become institutionally knowable and governable. A regime need not be fully coherent, centrally directed or coterminous with an entire civilisation.
CCRF — Civilisational Cognitive Regimes Framework
The analytical framework for examining how historically constituted and institutionally distributed relationships organise the production, validation, representation, circulation and use of governance-relevant knowledge. Its purpose is comparative and explanatory, not to prescribe a universal institutional design.
CCRP — Civilisational Cognitive Regime Profile
A structured, multidimensional analytical representation of the epistemic configuration through which a historically bounded governance system organises institutional knowability. It reconstructs relationships among EAS, KLA, GRA, KCS, ITM and EBA. It is an output of CCRF, not a ranking of civilisations.
CDP — Cognitive Demand Profile
A structured representation of the cognitive functions and levels of capacity required by a specified governance responsibility under defined operating conditions. In WP-F-L03-001. The meaning is determined by the cited framework: Computational Determination Potential in IIDSF; Cognitive Demand Profile in ICCAF.
CDP — Computational Determination Potential
A computational component’s capacity to shape downstream decision possibilities, distinct from influence actually exercised. In WP-C-L03-001. The meaning is determined by the cited framework: Computational Determination Potential in IIDSF; Cognitive Demand Profile in ICCAF.
CEDS — Computationally Evaluated Decision Space
Possibilities as transformed through decision-relevant computational operations.
CFAM — Cognitive Function Allocation Map
An explicit representation showing which cognitive functions within a Pilot Cognitive Architecture are performed primarily by humans, artificial systems or hybrid Human–AI configurations, including relevant review, escalation and fallback relationships.
CG — Constitutional Governability
The degree to which a governance configuration remains subject to identifiable and operative structures of authority, responsibility, accountability, constraint, contestability and applicable rights protection under the constitutional or authoritative order relevant to the case. CG does not constitute certification that a governance arrangement is democratic, legitimate, just or normatively desirable.
CGD — Cognitive–Governance Drift
Longitudinal deterioration in the material correspondence between Governance Representation and realised cognitive architecture.
CGEF — Civilisational Governance Evolution Framework
The comparative historical research framework for investigating how governance cognitive systems emerge, inherit, diffuse, hybridise, expand, contract, persist and transform across historical and civilisational contexts.
CGET — Comparative Governance Explanation Test
The comparative test through which the explanatory contribution of PGSF is assessed against the strongest relevant established governance framework. CGET proceeds through Comparator Identification, Comparator Reconstruction, PGSF Reconstruction and Comparative Explanatory Assessment and asks whether configurational analysis provides material explanatory leverage concerning continuity, change, dependency, accountability, authority or governability.
CP — Constitutional Persistence
The continuity of the constitutionally relevant properties necessary for a governance process to remain governable across Material Reconfiguration. CP concerns sufficient persistence of operative authority, responsibility, accountability, constraint, contestability and applicable rights protection rather than invariance of institutional form.
CPDF — Computational Policy Design Framework
The framework for analysing how computational capabilities participate within institutional policy design. CPDF connects problem representation, evidence, policy possibility spaces, constraints, trade-offs, uncertainty, institutional judgement, implementation and feedback.
CRRL — Cognitive Regime Reproduction Loop
The recurrent mechanism through which institutional reliance on an epistemic architecture can reinforce the conditions of future reliance: Authority → Legitimacy → Representation → Legibility → Decision → Institutional Reinforcement → Authority. The loop expresses a tendency, not an inevitable or closed causal circuit.
CS — Cognitive State
A model representation of cognitively relevant information or conditions maintained by a Governance Agent at a particular analytical moment, including, where relevant, knowledge, beliefs, uncertainty, attention, trust, perceived conditions or other states required by the research question.
CSDM — Civilisational Systems Dynamics Model
The mechanism-oriented framework developed in WP-D-L03-001 for analysing how changing systemic conditions become institutionally represented, translated into distributed intervention and recursively transformed by that intervention across time.
CSR — Cognitive State Representation
A bounded computational representation of selected internal variables influencing the behaviour of a Simulated Cognitive Node, such as knowledge, confidence, memory, trust, workload, attention or perceived uncertainty.
CT — Configurational Traceability
The degree to which the materially relevant components, functional allocations, relations, dependencies, constraints and authority structures of a governance process—and their changes across time—can be reliably reconstructed for analytical, accountability or governance purposes. CT is distinct from transparency, explainability, auditability and accountability.
DDL — Decision Determination Ledger
The empirical reconstruction instrument recording events, evidence, transformations, persistence/reversibility and confidence or uncertainty.
DDP — Decision Determination Pathway
A reconstructive representation of consequential transformations across a bounded decision episode, including possible loops and branches.
DDS — Decision Determination Structure
The cardinality-neutral configuration of human, organisational and computational components materially participating in determination.
DGC — Dynamic Governance Configuration
The temporally situated arrangement of components, functional allocations, relations and operative constraints through which one or more specified Governance Functions are performed. It can be represented analytically as DGC(t) = {C, A, R, K | F}. A DGC is a function-relative analytical object rather than a newly proposed governance entity.
DIC — Dynamic Institutional Configuration
A temporary or problem-specific cognitive architecture assembled from institutional nodes, expertise, technologies and external knowledge networks in order to address a defined governance challenge.
DICP — Distributed Intelligence Configuration Problem
The explanatory problem of how a distributed institutional cognitive system transforms heterogeneous capabilities that are structurally available within or accessible to the institution into problem-relevant configurations capable of generating system-level cognitive performance, and how those configurations are reorganised when correspondence with changing problem conditions deteriorates.
DIEC — Deliberate Institutional Evolution Cycle
The integrated recursive cycle connecting institutional observation, architectural reconstruction, measurement, design, simulation, pilot experimentation, evaluation, scaling or revision, institutionalisation and renewed observation.
DIIF — Distributed Institutional Intelligence Framework
The middle-range analytical framework developed in WP-B-L03-001 to explain how relatively persistent institutional cognitive architectures generate, integrate, evaluate and reconfigure problem-specific configurations of distributed capability.
DPS — Decision Possibility Space
Institutionally meaningful possibilities reasonably available at a relevant point in the process.
DSS — Decision Support Systems
Computational systems that support human and organisational decision processes through information retrieval, analysis, modelling and evaluation of alternatives. DSS is an established research tradition on which intelligent institutional decision support builds.
EA — Evergreen Article
The official publication identifier used for articles within the IDHUS Institutional Cognition Knowledge Series. Each Evergreen Article receives a permanent sequential identifier, such as EA-001 or EA-100, which remains stable across future revisions and editions.
EAC — Evidence–Architecture Continuity
The claim-specific relationship among an evidential claim, the evidence supporting it and the architecture to which continued application of the claim is proposed.
EACM — Evidence–Architecture Continuity Model
The claim-specific analytical architecture within ICTF for tracing and assessing whether the continued applicability of evidential claims is Preserved, Conditional, Disrupted or Re-established as institutional cognitive configurations change.
EAL — Evidence–Architecture Link
A representation of the architectural properties, relations, function allocations and operating conditions understood or hypothesised to matter for the continued applicability of a particular evidential claim. An EAL preserves dependency reasoning without asserting that causation has been proven.
EAS — Epistemic Authority Structure
The configuration through which recognised authority to produce, interpret, validate or certify governance-relevant knowledge is distributed among institutional and extra-institutional actors. Possessing knowledge or political authority does not automatically confer epistemic standing.
EBA — Epistemic Boundary Architecture
The historically constituted configuration of institutional limits through which phenomena, actors, experiences and forms of knowledge become differentially capable of entering, remaining within and influencing organised governance cognition. It concerns institutional knowability, not the boundary between truth and falsehood. In this directory EBA denotes the IDHUS concept; European Banking Authority is the external organisation cited in WP-E-L03-001.
ECP — Epistemic Conversion Process
Within CCRF, the Epistemic Conversion Process (ECP) is the recursive institutional process through which selected aspects of complex reality are transformed into forms of knowledge that become recognisable, legitimate, representable, circulable, interpretable and sufficiently actionable within governance.
EDI — Effective Decision Influence
Practical influence evidenced through downstream transformations rather than recommendation–outcome agreement alone.
EGE — Experimental Governance Environment
The bounded portion of a functioning institution deliberately configured to permit the controlled introduction, observation and evaluation of a specified cognitive intervention under real operational conditions.
ERA — Evidential Reference Architecture
The sufficiently specified and renewable cognitive configuration relative to which defined evidence supports particular claims at a given point in time.
FDA — Formal Decision Authority
The institutionally recognised authority configuration through which a decision acquires binding force; it may be individual, collective, shared, layered, delegated, ambiguous or contested.
FIA — Future Institutional Architecture
A governance configuration designed or evolved to organise human judgement, artificial cognition, distributed knowledge, institutional memory, authority and adaptive capacity under conditions of technological acceleration, institutional complexity and multi-level interdependence.
FIAF — Future Institutional Architecture Framework
The prospective framework for generating, comparing, simulating and progressively testing alternative Future Institutional Architectures. FIAF treats future governance as a plural, historically grounded and empirically challengeable design space rather than as a predetermined technological destination.
FP — Functional Persistence
Sufficient continuity in the performance of the reference Governance Function across Material Reconfiguration. FP does not require identical components, processes or institutional arrangements and should not be confused with invariance, recovery after discontinuity or mere continuation of observable outputs.
FPR — Functional Process Reconstruction
An evidence-organising procedure used to reconstruct how a specified Governance Function is actually performed, including relevant components, Functional Allocations, relations, dependencies and constraints. FPR supports construction of the DGC but is not itself a substantive governance construct.
FSB — Functional System Boundary
The case-specific analytical boundary used to determine which components and relationships should be included within the Dynamic Governance Configuration associated with a specified Governance Function. A component falls within the FSB where its variation, failure, removal or material alteration could plausibly change performance, allocation, authority, dependency, constraint or reconstructability of the reference Governance Function within the analytical horizon. Indirect dependency alone is insufficient for inclusion.
GA — Governance Agent
A bounded computational representation of an actor whose states, capabilities, Behavioural Rules, interactions or actions are causally relevant to the governance dynamics investigated by a MAGMA model.
GCA — Governance–Cognition Alignment
The degree of material correspondence between institutional governance arrangements and consequential realised artificial participation within a Human–AI Cognitive Configuration.
GCM — Governance Configuration Mapping
A representation of the Dynamic Governance Configuration at a specified point or interval in time. GCM records the materially relevant components, Functional Allocations, relations, dependencies and Operative Constraints necessary for longitudinal configurational comparison.
GCPIF — Governance Cognitive Performance Indicator Framework
The methodological framework for translating theoretical properties of Institutional Cognition into empirical observables, candidate indicators and progressively validated measurement structures. It evaluates multidimensional cognitive performance without reducing institutional intelligence to a single score.
GCS — Governance Cognitive Simulation
A computational representation of selected institutional cognitive structures, processes and interactions designed to investigate how specified cognitive architectures behave under controlled assumptions and experimental conditions.
GCSA — Governance Cognitive Simulation Architecture
The methodological architecture for constructing, manipulating, observing, validating and governing computational representations of Institutional Cognition.
GE — Governance Environment
The set of external conditions, events, constraints and processes represented as affecting Governance Agents or institutional dynamics without necessarily being generated within the modelled Institutional Structure.
GEC — Governance Epistemic Configuration
A Governance Epistemic Configuration can be defined as a historically delimited configuration of relationships among knowledge, representation and authority operating within a governance system or interconnected set of governance systems. It is the empirically reconstructable unit used to investigate a CCR within specified temporal, institutional and governance boundaries, not a necessary level in a nested hierarchy.
GEM — Governance Environment Model
The computational representation of the external conditions with which a Governance Cognitive Simulation interacts. It may represent signals, shocks, uncertainty, constraints and other environmental properties relevant to the experiment.
GF — Governance Function
An activity that materially contributes to the organised direction, coordination, constraint, implementation or adaptation of collectively consequential conditions within a governance process. Cognitive activity alone does not constitute a Governance Function unless it contributes materially to such governance activity.
GFMIC — General Framework for Measuring Institutional Cognition
The L01 measurement framework through which the theoretical architecture of Institutional Cognition is translated into cognitive variables, indicators, metrics, profiles and empirical measurement structures.
GIO — Governance Information Object
An abstract representation of governance-relevant information circulating within a Governance Cognitive Simulation, such as observations, datasets, reports, warnings, scientific assessments, policy evaluations or AI recommendations.
GoR — Governance of Reconfiguration
The specialised application of metagovernance concerned with how Material Reconfigurations of governance configurations are authorised, constrained, observed, contested, validated and, where necessary, reversed. GoR does not constitute an independent theory of governance-of-governance and is neither universally necessary nor sufficient for Governance Persistence.
GP — Governance Persistence
Continuity sufficient to maintain the performance and governability of the reference governance process across Material Reconfiguration. Within PGSF, GP requires sufficient Functional Persistence and Constitutional Persistence, expressed conceptually as GP = FP + CP. The expression is not a numerical equation and does not permit strength in one dimension to compensate for failure in the other.
GRA — Governance Representation Architecture
The configuration of representational systems through which selected aspects of complex reality become institutionally observable, comparable, interpretable and available for governance action. It specifies representation within CCRF while retaining the lineage of Governance Representation Regimes in CGEF.
GSS — Governance Simulation Scenario
The structured specification of the experimental context within which a Governance Cognitive Simulation operates, including architecture, environment, initial conditions, parameters, events and other conditions relevant to the experiment.
HACC — Human–AI Cognitive Configuration
A task-specific arrangement of human actors, artificial cognitive systems, information resources, organisational procedures and cognitive interfaces through which one or more institutional cognitive functions are performed.
HAICA — Human–AI Institutional Cognitive Architecture
The designation used in WP-E-L03-001 for the inherited framework analysing how human and artificial cognitive capabilities participate within institutional configurations. This L03 naming variant is retained alongside Human–AI Institutional Collaboration Architecture; it does not establish a separate framework.
HAICA — Human–AI Institutional Collaboration Architecture
The framework for analysing how human and artificial cognitive capabilities become distributed, connected, coordinated and adaptively reorganised within institutions while preserving distinctions between cognitive participation and legitimate authority.
HCA — Human Cognitive Agent
A Governance Agent representing a human actor whose bounded cognition, information access, capabilities, Behavioural Rules or institutional position are relevant to the research question.
IA — Interaction Architecture
The structured set of relationships and interaction possibilities through which Governance Agents communicate, exchange or transform information, coordinate, influence one another or otherwise participate in multi-agent dynamics.
ICAM — Institutional Cognitive Architecture Model
The analytical model for representing how cognitive functions become distributed, connected, activated and coordinated within institutions. ICAM translates the conceptual foundations established by ICCA into explicit institutional cognitive architectures.
ICC — Institutional Cognitive Configuration
The research-specific arrangement through which cognitive functions, information access, interactions, verification, dependencies and authority are distributed among human, organisational and artificial cognitive components within a governance system.
ICCA — Institutional Cognition Conceptual Architecture
The versioned conceptual architecture developed to organise the theoretical domain of Institutional Cognition and provide a common conceptual reference for the wider Operational Model Suite.
ICCA — Institutional Cognitive Capability Architecture
The designation used in WP-A-L03-001 for the preceding architecture organising the foundations, functions, structures, operations and evolutionary dimensions of Institutional Cognition. This L03 naming variant is retained alongside Institutional Cognition Conceptual Architecture; it does not establish a separate framework.
ICCAF — Institutional Cognitive Capacity Assessment Framework
A requirements-based framework for identifying, evidencing and diagnosing cognitive capacity within governance institutions. It compares the Cognitive Demand Profile with the Cognitive Capacity Profile to assess Cognitive Capacity Fit.
ICTF — Institutional Cognitive Transformation Framework
The overarching analytical framework that conceptualises institutional transformation as longitudinal architectural coevolution and connects reconstruction of changing cognitive configurations with claim-specific assessment and renewal of evidence.
IDHUS — Institute for the Development of Human Understanding Systems
The research institute responsible for developing the Institutional Cognition scientific programme and its wider research architecture, including Working Papers, Research Validation Papers, Operational Research Programmes, the Research Atlas and related scientific initiatives.
IDSS — Intelligent Decision Support Systems
Decision-support systems that incorporate artificial intelligence capabilities into information processing, analysis and the development or evaluation of decision alternatives. They form part of the scientific background to IIDSF.
IEA — Institutional Epistemic Architecture
The analytical framework developed in WP-A-L03-001 for examining how representations, operations, interfaces, epistemic properties, pathways and institutional status interact within distributed institutional cognition. An institutional epistemic architecture is the empirical configuration analysed by that framework. In this directory IEA denotes the IDHUS concept; International Energy Agency is the external organisation cited in WP-D-L03-001.
IEP — Institutional Epistemic Pathway
A reconstructed sequence linking consequential representations, operations and interfaces through which knowledge is transformed and acquires institutional status.
IETP — Institutional Epistemic Transformation Problem
The problem of explaining how institutionally consequential knowledge changes as it moves through distributed cognitive systems and whether its epistemic properties are preserved, enriched, compressed or degraded.
IFDS — Institutional Futures Design Space
The range of plausible institutional architectures that may emerge under different technological, political, environmental and societal conditions. FIAF uses the IFDS as a comparative possibility space rather than as a prediction of future institutional development.
IIDSF — Intelligent Institutional Decision-Support Framework
The integrated institutional-cognitive framework proposed in WP-C-L03-001.
IS — Institutional Structure
The represented organisational, procedural, relational and authority conditions that constrain, enable or organise the behaviour and interaction of Governance Agents.
ITM — Institutional Translation Mechanisms
The practices, procedures and institutional relationships through which knowledge generated in one epistemic or organisational context becomes interpretable and usable in another while preserving sufficient epistemic meaning to remain substantively valid. Translation extends beyond language to categories, methods, evidence and decision structures.
JS — Judgement Space
Possibilities genuinely available for institutional evaluation at the judgement stage.
KCS — Knowledge Circulation Structure
The configuration of institutional relationships, pathways and practices through which governance-relevant knowledge moves among the actors and organisational environments that produce, interpret and use it. Circulation concerns availability beyond the location of origin; it does not alone ensure successful translation.
KLA — Knowledge Legitimacy Architecture
The configuration of principles, standards, practices and institutional expectations through which governance systems determine whether knowledge claims possess sufficient credibility, relevance and justificatory standing to enter organised institutional cognition. Institutional legitimacy neither guarantees truth nor denotes the political legitimacy of governance.
MAGE — Multi-Agent Governance Experiment
A structured computational experiment conducted through MAGMA in which selected components, configurations, Behavioural Rules, information structures, institutional conditions or environmental variables are manipulated in order to investigate specified governance mechanisms and their system-level consequences.
MAGMA — Multi-Agent Governance Modelling Architecture
A methodological architecture for constructing, experimenting with and empirically challenging multi-agent representations of distributed Institutional Cognition. MAGMA integrates Governance Agents, Cognitive States, Behavioural Rules, Interaction Architecture, Institutional Structure and Governance Environment together with explicit Governance Information Objects.
MHJ — Meaningful Human Judgement
A condition in which authorised human actors possess sufficient cognitive access, contextual understanding, relevant expertise, practical time, alternative information and institutional authority to understand, question and alter artificial contributions when doing so is consequential.
MR — Material Reconfiguration
A change in the composition, functional allocation, relational structure, dependency architecture or operative constraints of a Dynamic Governance Configuration that materially alters one or more governance-relevant pathways. Materiality concerns consequential configurational change rather than difference alone and does not require an observable change in final policy output.
OCA — Organisational Cognitive Agent
A simulation abstraction representing a collective organisational component whose behaviour reflects selected institutional rules, routines, capacities or cognitive properties rather than the cognition of a single individual actor.
ORP — Operational Research Programme
The operational research architecture through which IDHUS translates its scientific foundations into Research Series, Research Lines, Working Papers, methodologies, computational models, simulations, validation programmes and applied research.
PAA — Pilot Authority Architecture
The explicit representation of where advisory influence, review responsibility, escalation authority, override capacity and final decision authority reside within an AI Governance Pilot.
PCA — Pilot Cognitive Architecture
The proposed configuration of human actors, artificial systems, information resources, interfaces, authority relationships and feedback mechanisms through which the Target Cognitive Function operates during an AI Governance Pilot.
PCH — Pilot Cognitive Hypothesis
An empirically challengeable proposition specifying how a defined modification to institutional cognitive architecture is expected to affect one or more observable properties under stated institutional conditions.
PCR — Pilot Configuration Record
A versioned record of the materially relevant technological, cognitive, interface, workflow and governance components defining the Pilot Cognitive Architecture during different phases of experimentation.
PDD — Pilot Disposition Decision
The structured institutional judgement determining the next state of an experimental configuration following a pilot phase, including termination, redesign, repetition, continuation, replication, limited expansion or progression towards broader institutionalisation.
PDS — Presented Decision Space
Possibilities and information made cognitively available through the interaction environment.
PEM — Pilot Evidence Maturity
The evidential maturity of an institutional cognitive proposition across successive stages of real-world experimentation. PEM concerns the strength, breadth, comparison, replication and scaling of institutional evidence rather than the technical maturity of an AI system.
PFCA — Pilot Failure Containment Architecture
The set of mechanisms through which detected or suspected failures within an AI Governance Pilot can be isolated, investigated and prevented from propagating beyond acceptable institutional boundaries.
PGE — Pilot Governance Envelope
The legal, ethical, organisational, operational and experimental constraints defining the legitimate space within which an AI Governance Pilot may operate.
PGG — Pilot Governance Group
The institutional body responsible for reviewing the design, readiness, significant deviations, evidence and disposition of an AI Governance Pilot without replacing the underlying authority structures of the governance domain.
PGNM — Planetary Governance Network Model
The framework for examining how governance-relevant cognition can become organised across institutional, jurisdictional and scalar boundaries without requiring a centralised planetary political authority.
PGNM — Polycentric Governance Network Model
The designation used in WP-D-L03-001 for the preceding model of differentiated governance nodes connected through information exchange, coordination and epistemic reliance. This L03 naming variant is retained alongside Planetary Governance Network Model; it does not establish a separate model.
PGSF — Post-Governance Systems Framework
A function-centred analytical framework for reconstructing how specified Governance Functions are performed through temporally situated configurations of components, Functional Allocations, relations and constraints; how those configurations undergo Material Reconfiguration; and whether functional and constitutional governance persistence remains identifiable, traceable and governable across those changes. PGSF is an analytical framework rather than a general governance theory, normative model, forecasting system or institutional design prescription.
PGT — Post-Governance Threshold
A criterion-based classification gate designed to determine whether a case warrants treatment as a Post-Governance Candidate and to prevent conceptual stretching. Its four cumulative conditions are Functional Distribution, Material Configurational Reconfiguration, Governance Persistence and Configurational Explanatory Leverage. PGT is not a numerical index or scoring system.
PIA — Pilot Instrumentation Architecture
The structured system through which evidence concerning an AI Governance Pilot is collected, organised and interpreted, including the properties observed, methods used, observation intervals and evidential responsibilities.
PRA — Pilot Readiness Assessment
The structured evaluation of whether an institution possesses sufficient baseline understanding, authority clarity, data quality, measurement capacity, participant preparation, reversibility and governance capability to conduct a meaningful AI Governance Pilot.
RDS — Represented Decision Space
The structured representation of the decision problem entering formal organisational or computational processing.
RVP — Research Validation Paper
An official IDHUS scientific publication category dedicated to the systematic validation, consolidation and development of foundational concepts within the Institute’s research architecture. RVPs provide part of the theoretical foundation upon which subsequent Working Papers, frameworks and research programmes are developed.
SCI — Simulated Cognitive Interface
A computational representation of the interface through which Simulated Cognitive Nodes exchange Governance Information Objects, coordinate cognitive activity or interact with other components of a Governance Cognitive Simulation.
SCN — Simulated Cognitive Node
The basic computational unit representing a bounded cognitive participant within a Governance Cognitive Simulation. An SCN may represent a human actor, artificial system, organisational component or other analytically defined participant.
SPT — Simulation Provenance Trace
A structured record preserving the assumptions, configurations, parameters, model versions and relevant transformations associated with a Governance Cognitive Simulation. It supports reproducibility, interpretation and methodological accountability.
TCF — Target Cognitive Function
The specific institutional cognitive function selected for modification and empirical investigation within an AI Governance Pilot. Defining the TCF establishes the functional boundary of the intervention and helps prevent uncontrolled expansion of experimental scope.
TED — Transformation Evidence Debt
The accumulated set of unresolved evidential obligations created when materially relevant architectural change outpaces the assessment, qualification or revalidation required to maintain Evidence–Architecture Continuity.
WP — Working Paper
An official IDHUS scientific publication category through which theoretical frameworks, methodological architectures, operational models and research propositions are developed in structured and research-evolving form. Working Papers constitute a central component of the IDHUS Operational Research Programme.