The PKN Doctrine ·

In thirteen points.

The Peacekeeper Network in the public, citable form. Interaction structure, measured at the edge, held under custody. The record of every reading belongs to the person whose interaction was measured. Protection scales as the immune vocabulary of the network grows.

Version 1.0 · Cheraitia, M. · Peacekeeper Network, 2026

  1. I · WHAT WE MEASURE
  2. II · WHAT WE CLAIM
  3. III · HOW WE BUILD
  4. IV · HOW WE DEPLOY
points
13
grouped in four movements
measure
structure
not content, not persona
custody
individual
or civic on their behalf
immunity
propagates
signed on an append-only log
I.

WHAT WE MEASURE

  1. 01

    Spectral interaction signatures.

    Any sufficiently rich interaction protocol, applied to a person across enough interactions, converges to a stable spectral signature: a structural fingerprint of how that person interacts. Reproducible across protocols, persistent across languages, individually identifying.

  2. 02

    Measurement, not profiling.

    A signature is not a personality test, a behavioural cluster, a propensity score, or a label. It is a geometric record of interaction structure. It contains no opinion about the person.

  3. 03

    Self-supervised by construction.

    No human ever labels what the instrument should mean. The measurement is what the geometry converges to, not what an operator wants it to be.

II.

WHAT WE CLAIM

  1. 04

    Custody, not ownership.

    Cognition cannot be owned, because it is constituted in interaction. The measurement record can be owned, and is currently unowned. We claim custody (read, carry, revoke, refuse, and aggregation-resistance) for the person whose signature is measured.

  2. 05

    Population custody without individual exposure.

    Aggregates built from signatures are attribution-resistant: it is architecturally impossible to re-derive an individual signature from the population reading. This is not a policy promise. It is a measurable property of the federated architecture.

  3. 06

    Refusal is structural.

    The instrument refuses to read what it has not been calibrated to read. It does not extrapolate, does not improvise, and does not impute. Failure to read is not a bug; it is the custody guarantee.

III.

HOW WE BUILD

  1. 07

    Determinism.

    Same input, same checkpoint, same reading. Always. Non-determinism is not an engineering shortcut we will accept.

  2. 08

    Glass-box.

    Every reading is reproducible from the released bank and released artefacts. The instrument is open enough that any third party can verify any reading we publish.

  3. 09

    No retraining for new contexts.

    A new institution, a new jurisdiction, a new harm category produces a new bank of exemplars, not a new model. The model is universal; the bank is local. This is what makes the instrument federable without consent leaking across deployments.

IV.

HOW WE DEPLOY

  1. 10

    Programmes, not products.

    Each PKN deployment is a co-designed programme with an institution, against a real oversight question, in a defined jurisdiction. There is no off-the-shelf PKN deployment. There never will be.

  2. 11

    Independent custodians.

    The custody decision in every PKN programme is held by an institution that is not Blankstate, not the operator, and not the technology vendor. We build the instrument; we never hold custody of the population it measures.

  3. 12

    Public progress logs.

    Every PKN programme publishes an append-only, time-stamped, signed progress log. Failure modes are logged with the same discipline as successes. Where we are stuck, the log says we are stuck.

  4. 13

    Network immunity by propagation.

    Each PKN deployment contributes what it has learned to recognise as a signed protocol update. Every other deployment inherits that recognition. Protection at population scale is delivered by an immune vocabulary that propagates across the network, not by any deployment holding a population as data.

Scope

What the doctrine forbids, and what it permits.

Forbidden

  • Profile-based aggregation that re-identifies individuals.
  • Hidden retraining of the served instrument from observed signatures.
  • Custody decisions held by the technology vendor.
  • Endorsement of legislation, candidates, vendors, or political parties.
  • Deployment without a published charter and a public progress log.
  • Reading what the instrument has not been calibrated to read.

Permitted

  • Open citation, replication, and adversarial review by anyone.
  • Federated programmes across jurisdictions with custody held locally.
  • Commercial deployment of the same instrument under the same invariants in non-PKN settings.
  • Dissenting endorsement: endorsers may sign with named reservations.
  • Forking: anyone may fork the public artefacts under their own custody arrangement, provided they hold the same invariants.

Endorsement & citation

Read, quote, endorse, fork.

Endorse the doctrine

Public registry

A one-time public act of support for the doctrine. Once approved, your name and affiliation are recorded against doctrine v1.0 in the public registry. Endorsement is of the doctrine, not of any specific instrument.

  1. 01 · Who
  2. 02 · Where
  3. 03 · Why
Who is endorsing

01 · Who

How are you signing?

Endorsing signals intellectual support and lands on a public list. To work with PKnet on a pilot, study, or deployment, send a request →

Citation

Cheraitia, M. PKN Doctrine, v1.0. Peacekeeper Network, 2026.

Free to read, quote, and cite. Please keep the citation line intact.

Further reading

The Open Letter frames the doctrine in plain English and is the shortest read for someone new to the work.

Read the Open Letter