FIJISHI // COGNITIVE INTEGRITY PROTOCOLS (CIP)

CLASSIFICATION: FIJISHI RESTRICTED // DOCTRINAL STANDARD

Preamble
The Cognitive Integrity Protocols (CIP) establish the sovereign doctrine for the protection, resilience, and lawful stewardship of national decision-making systems under conditions of autonomous, adversarial, or cognitive influence. CIP addresses threats that undermine the integrity of thought, judgment, and strategic decision-making – from algorithmic manipulation and synthetic media to adversarial AI and cognitive warfare.

Through CIP, a state preserves the autonomy, reliability, and lawful authority of its decision-making apparatus while ensuring auditable, verifiable resilience across all governance, defense, and critical infrastructure domains.

Article I - Sovereignty of Mindspace
1.1 Inviolable Cognitive Authority
The integrity of state decision-making, whether human or augmented by AI, is a sovereign function. No external actor, algorithm, or informational system shall compromise lawful judgment or strategic intent.

1.2 Autonomous Decision Resilience
All critical systems supporting executive, defense, and policy decisions must remain resilient to adversarial pressures - algorithmic, informational, or psychological.

1.3 Verifiable Cognitive Assurance
Every state-level decision-making system shall maintain an immutable, auditable record of influence, context, and rationale to verify lawful autonomy under scrutiny.
Article II - Doctrinal Principles
2.1 Mindspace Preservation
CIP mandates the safeguarding of mental and cognitive integrity for all personnel and AI-augmented decision systems engaged in critical governance or defense functions.

2.2 Adversarial Containment
All potential sources of manipulation - including synthetic media, generative AI, propaganda campaigns, and cyber-psychological operations - must be detectable, quarantined, and neutralized before affecting strategic outcomes.

2.3 Continuity of Judgment
Protocols ensure that, even under systemic stress or cognitive interference, lawful and rational decision-making persists in accordance with constitutional and sovereign mandates.

2.4 Auditability & Transparency
Every decision path must produce verifiable evidence linking input, reasoning, and output, supporting accountability without compromising operational security.
Article III - Governance Architecture
3.1 Cognitive Layer
Defines the mental and decision-making integrity thresholds for individuals, advisory systems, and AI-augmented cognition within sovereign institutions.

3.2 Institutional Layer
Each agency, ministry, and critical decision-making body implements a CIP charter, outlining threat detection, cognitive resilience mechanisms, and escalation pathways.

3.3 Technical Layer
Enforces digital and algorithmic safeguards - secure decision logs, adversarial AI monitoring, cryptographic proof-of-decision, and resilience testing for autonomous systems.
Article IV - Doctrinal Outcomes
Upon enactment, CIP ensures:

‣ The preservation of sovereign judgment under adversarial cognitive or AI pressure.
‣ The detection, containment, and neutralization of algorithmic or informational attacks on decision-making.
‣ The maintenance of lawful, auditable, and verifiable governance decisions under extreme stress.
Article V - Integration Mandate
CIP is a core doctrinal layer within the Fijishi Sovereign Standards System, integrating with:

‣ Meta-Compliance Architecture (MCA) for systemic enforcement across policy and frameworks.
‣ Sovereign Algorithmic Immunity Doctrine (SAID) for lawful containment of AI-driven cognitive influence.
‣ Institutional Failover Charters (IFC) to ensure decision integrity during systemic crises.

// End //