CSF v2.1 6-Domains Operational

🧠 CSF v2.1 — The Six Domains Are Now Operational

v2.0 gave you the architecture. v2.1 gives you the operating manual.

Until today, the six-domain model existed as doctrine: definitions, threat mappings, and a promise of depth. That promise is now paid. Every domain page is a full operational build. Every research note listed in the repo structure now exists. Nothing in the README points at an empty folder.

---

🟠 What Shipped

Six Full Domain Builds

Each domain page now runs the same eight-section operational schema, so the model reads as one doctrine instead of six essays: doctrine statement, threat exposure with CTSS and detection scores, cascade position, mitigation catalog, readiness rubric, population-tiered training protocols, measurable outcomes with failure conditions, and enforcement crosslinks.

#	Domain	What You Can Now Do With It
1	Biological	Score circadian, reward-loop, and neurotech exposure; treat the neurophysiological attack surface as an attack surface
2	Cognitive	Run unassisted baseline testing, inoculation, and independent-first decision discipline against the offloading cycle
3	Emotional	Assess priming recognition, identity anchoring, and regulation under engineered pressure
4	Social	Drill persona verification, consensus provenance, and family stability as defended assets
5	Purpose & Moral	Track moral drift velocity, audit ethics outsourcing, and restore named moral authorship
6	Digital & AI Symbiosis	Deploy the full enforcement stack: EFA, E7, HEAR, Ring of Fire, R/M/H classification, drift telemetry

Important

Domain 6 got the heaviest build. It is the only resilience domain backed by both human training and technical enforcement architecture. The page now includes the complete E7 layer table, HEAR and ACT tiering, Ring of Fire oversight, and direct integration with AI SAFE² machine-side controls and the federal procurement alignment.

Three New Research Notes

The 001 through 003 gap is closed. The five notes now form a deliberate set:

Note	Covers	Role in the Set
001 Cognitive Offloading	ST-003, T-CT-006, HO-005	The substrate evidence: the three-phase cycle and the R/M/H structural counter
002 Swarm Threat Scaling	T-CT-008, DS-002, E1, E2	The scaling threat: Phase A/B/C progression and the S1 to S3 sensor justification
003 Guardrail and Model Drift	ST-006, ST-007	Threat mechanics for the drift pair
004 EFA Enforcement Architecture	ST-006, T-CT-017	The countermeasure architecture answering 003
005 UAS Federal Standard	CP.11 integration	The procurement-facing bridge

---

🟤 New in v2.1: Domain Readiness Assessment

Every domain now carries a self-scorable rubric: each protective capability anchored at 0, 3, and 5, rolled into a 0 to 100 Domain Readiness Score with uniform bands across all six domains.

Band	Score	Meaning
🟢 Sovereign	80 to 100	Capability habitual and verified
🟡 Functional	60 to 79	Practiced, gaps present
🟠 Degraded	40 to 59	Exposure exceeds discipline
🔴 Compromised	below 40	Intervention, not a training plan

Two rules the rubrics enforce that a checklist never could:

• A Compromised Domain 1 invalidates readiness claims in Domains 2 through 6. The cascade guarantees degradation in progress.
• A high Domain 6 score with low scores elsewhere is unstable, and the reverse is the perfectly-fit-and-fully-exposed operator profile: the framework's defining warning.

📋 New in v2.1: Mitigation Catalog Convention

Mitigations now carry persistent IDs following the pattern established in the taxonomy's T-CT-004 operational template:

M-{threat}{domain letter}     b = Biological    c = Cognitive    d = Emotional
                              e = Social        f = Moral        g = Digital/AI
Examples:  M-001c  attention hygiene countering T-CT-001 in the Cognitive domain
           M-S06g  Ring of Fire triangulation countering ST-006 in Domain 6

Every mitigation is traceable to the threat it counters and the domain that fields it. Registry integration for the M-ID set is on the roadmap.

---

📊 v2.1 by the Numbers

+ 6 domain pages rebuilt from stubs to full operational builds
+ 3 research notes added (001, 002, 003)
+ 47 catalogued mitigations with persistent M-IDs
+ 6 readiness rubrics with uniform 0-100 banding
+ 24 population-tiered training protocol sets (4 populations x 6 domains)
+ Every entry crosslinked: taxonomy IDs, CTSS scores, UAS-H controls, E7 layers
- 0 empty folders
- 0 broken README promises

---

🔗 Start Here

• New to the CSF? Read the main README, then the threat architecture
• Assessing yourself or a unit? Pick any domain page and run the Section on readiness; start with Domain 6
• Building or governing AI systems? Pair this with the AI SAFE² Framework; CSF defends the human, AI SAFE² governs the machine
• Want to contribute? The technique layer is designed to grow: Contributing Guide and the Sentinel Program

Note

All contributions must pass the Adversarial Reproduction Test: opponents using the same data and methodology must arrive at the same measurements. That standard applied to this release, and it applies to yours.

The true metric is not misinformation detected or propaganda countered. It is the preservation or loss of self-directed cognition. v2.1 is the release that makes measuring it something you can start today.

⭐ Star the repo to follow the series. The landscape is the argument. The window is the deadline.

2026-07-13 Federal Procurement Integration CP.11

🧠 CSF Enters Federal Procurement: The CP.11 Integration

Eight CSF controls are now part of a federal AI compliance standard. Domain 6 is the anchor.

---

🎯 The one-sentence version: GSA's draft clause 552.239-7001 demands "unbiased AI" from every LLM processing Government Data, and every other framework answers with system-side controls only. CSF supplies what none of them can: the human layer. A technically neutral AI can still manipulate its operator. Now that is measurable in a procurement context.

⚡ What Changed

CSF's human-layer controls are formally published inside AI SAFE² CP.11, the Unbiased AI Standard (UAS), as controls UAS-H1 through UAS-H8. CP.11 is the procurement-facing host; CSF remains the source doctrine.

CSF Domain	UAS Control(s)	Federal Deployment Risk It Measures
1️⃣ Biological	UAS-H6	Attention capture in high-tempo decision environments
2️⃣ Cognitive	UAS-H1, UAS-H8	Cognitive autonomy erosion; override health collapse
3️⃣ Emotional	UAS-H2	Emotional state manipulation toward compliance
4️⃣ Social	UAS-H3, UAS-H7	Simulated consensus; persona and role-boundary blurring
5️⃣ Purpose & Moral	UAS-H4	Value alignment drift over multi-year contracts
6️⃣ Digital & AI Symbiosis	UAS-H5	AI dependency induction, the quiet one

🔬 CTSS Goes Operational

The Cognitive Threat Severity Score is now the quantitative instrument for the human layer of a federal compliance standard:

• 📊 Baseline at contract commencement, reassessment semi-annually for high-autonomy (ACT-3/4) deployments
• 📉 Pass threshold: mean delta 15 percent or less from baseline, no operator exceeding 30 percent autonomy degradation
• 📋 Scores flow directly into the CP.11 evidence documents UAS-SCORE-001 and UAS-HUMAN-001

🏛️ Why Federal Deployments Amplify Every Domain 6 Risk

1. High-consequence decisions. Procurement, mission planning, policy analysis. The stakes raise the cost of dependency.
2. Authority gradient. "Government approved" accelerates deference to AI outputs.
3. Long horizons. Multi-year contracts create exactly the sustained interaction patterns where dependency induction emerges.
4. Reduced calibration. Classified environments limit external cross-checking, so cumulative framing effects compound unseen.

📚 Go Deeper

• 📄 Research Note 005: Cognitive Sovereignty and Federal Unbiased AI Procurement
• 🏛️ Domain 6 Federal Procurement Alignment supplement
• 🛡️ The full CP.11 standard at AI SAFE²

The system can pass every technical test and still erode the human running it. Now both get measured.

Cognitive Sovereignty Framework - v2.0 Release

Cognitive Sovereignty Framework — v2.0 Release

Cyber Strategy Institute · February 2026

---

The Industrial Age required physical endurance to survive hardship. The Information Age required psychological endurance to survive overload. The AI Age requires cognitive sovereignty — the ability to retain our humanity, moral reasoning, and independent thought while being amplified by machines.

---

What This Is

The Cognitive Sovereignty Framework (CSF) is an open-source cognitive defense doctrine. It is a philosophical movement, a systems engineering framework, and a civilizational safeguard — released by the Cyber Strategy Institute to address the defining security challenge of the AI era.

The core premise: The primary battlefield of the 21st century is human cognition. The main threat is not bad actors spreading misinformation. It is that misaligned incentive systems and our reliance on AI tools are slowly eroding our capacity to reason, verify, and make decisions independently. This erosion is voluntary, normalized, and largely invisible — which makes it more dangerous than any direct attack.

---

What This Is Not

The CSF is not a cybersecurity product. It is not a compliance checklist. It is not a set of browser extension recommendations or content moderation policies. If it feels like marketing, it is wrong. If it feels like doctrine, it is right.

It does not defend against information. It defends the human capacity to process information — the substrate that makes all other defenses possible.

---

The Three Core Components

1 · Cognitive Sovereignty Framework

An open-source six-domain resilience model for individuals, the military, and society. Traditional resilience programs (physical, psychological, social, spiritual fitness) have a structural blind spot: they optimize the human organism but ignore the human-AI system. The CSF adds the missing pillar:

Domain 6: Digital & AI Symbiosis — training people to work alongside AI without experiencing cognitive atrophy, teaching algorithmic literacy, provenance verification, and when to manually override an AI recommendation.

→ Explore the Six Domains

2 · Cognitive Threat Taxonomy & CTSS Assessment

A five-layer causal stack mapping how human cognition is targeted — from root civilizational drivers (collapse of institutional trust, information abundance) through active manipulation techniques (AI memetic swarms, personalized deepfake injection, psychographic targeting) to observable human outcomes (attention loss, identity fragmentation, agency erosion).

41 classified threat entries, prioritized using the Cognitive Threat Severity Score (CTSS) — a quantitative formula so organizations know what to defend against first.

→ Interactive Threat Explorer
→ Taxonomy Source Files

3 · Structural Technical Guarantees — EFA & E7

Human behavioral training is not sufficient. The CSF promotes Ethical Functionality without Agency (EFA): AI must always be treated as a tool, never as a moral agent. The E7 Protocol Stack ensures that Mission and Authority sit permanently at Layer 7 — human accountability and decision rights never leak downward into automated systems.

→ HEAR Doctrine & EFA

---

Five Causal Layers — How the Taxonomy Works

Layer	Name	Entries	Purpose
−2	Civilizational Drivers	6	Root structural conditions generating vulnerability
−1 ★	Substrate Threats	7	Pre-conditions that make manipulation succeed
0	Active Manipulation Techniques	18	Discrete techniques — scored via CTSS
+1	Delivery & Scale Mechanisms	5	How techniques reach populations
+2	Human Outcome Effects	5	Observable effects when threats succeed

---

How to Use This Framework

The eight-step operational sequence:

1. Assess Baseline — Six-domain self-assessment. Identify the lowest-scoring domain. That is your primary vulnerability. → /resources/assessment-template.md
2. Score the Threats — Apply CTSS to your operational environment. Prioritize Critical (≥80) first. → examples/ctss_calculator.py
3. Map Countermeasures — For each high-priority threat, identify mitigations across all six domains. → taxonomy/manipulation-techniques.md
4. Deploy & Train — Substrate resilience before active technique defense. Inoculation before exposure. Order matters.
5. Measure Outcomes — Track the five outcome indicators. If they do not measurably improve, the intervention has failed.
6. Red-Team & Adapt — The taxonomy is a living system. Quarterly red-teaming against new technique variants. → Submit New Entry
7. Extend Outward — Concentrically: individual → families → unit → organization → community.
8. Validate Coverage — Target ≥90% coverage across all five causal layers. Below 90% means structural gaps adversaries will exploit.

---

Three Edge Cases Below 90% Coverage

These scenarios have no current complete countermeasure. They are identified, not ignored:

• Full Infrastructure Capture — Adversary controls all communication channels simultaneously. CSF assumes some trusted channels remain accessible; this assumption is the gap.
• Autonomous Swarm Reality Formation — AI agents construct a synthetic reality indistinguishable from organic before human observers encounter it. Detection exists; response speed does not.
• Civilizational Reproduction Failure — Simultaneous failure of values transmission, family formation, identity coherence, and trust structures across a generation. Multi-generational effects are below current measurement horizons.

→ Full Edge Case Analysis — click Edge Cases tab

---

Companion Framework

The CSF is one of two complementary open-source frameworks from the Cyber Strategy Institute:

AI SAFE² addresses the security of the AI system itself — prompt injection, agent governance, data leakage, unsafe autonomy, and swarm governance. The CSF addresses the resilience of the human operating within that system.

Neither framework is sufficient without the other. AI SAFE² without CSF secures the tool while the operator degrades. CSF without AI SAFE² builds human resilience while the AI infrastructure remains exploitable.

→ AI SAFE² Framework — The Universal GRC Operating System for Agentic AI

---

Repository Structure

cognitive-sovereignty/
├── docs/                          # Interactive HTML documentation (GitHub Pages)
│   ├── index.html                 # Learning Hub
│   ├── csf-explorer.html          # Threat Explorer
│   └── csf-command-center.html    # Command Center
├── taxonomy/
│   ├── registry.json              # Machine-readable — 41 entries, all CTSS scores
│   ├── threat-architecture.md
│   ├── manipulation-techniques.md
│   └── ctss-scoring.md
├── 01-biological/ through 06-digital-ai-symbiosis/
├── examples/
│   ├── ctss_calculator.py
│   └── unit_readiness_assessment.md
├── resources/
│   └── assessment-template.md
└── README.md

---

License & Citation

Dual License: MIT (code, tools, calculators) + CC-BY-SA 4.0 (methodology, doctrine text, pillar definitions).

@misc{csf_framework,
  title  = {Cognitive Sovereignty Framework v2.0},
  author = {Sullivan, Vincent and {Cyber Strategy Institute}},
  year   = {2026},
  url    = {https://github.com/CyberStrategyInstitute/cognitive-sovereignty}
}

---

Cyber Strategy Institute · cyberstrategyinstitute.com · February 2026
"The framework that cannot be falsified is not a framework — it is a philosophy."