An RN initiative · in development
Nervous-system-aware governance and research-led institutional design: an original framework for identifying, documenting, measuring and governing how institutional policies, technologies, procedures, language, environments and power structures shape human cognitive and physiological conditions.
The claim
A scheduling policy, an escalation path, a lighting specification, a consent form and a piece of internal language are all interventions on a human nervous system. They are almost never designed as though they were, and they are almost never measured that way afterwards.
The framework asks a governance question that most governance frameworks skip: not whether a policy is defensible, but what it does to the people living inside it, and what observation would have shown otherwise. That is a measurable question, which is the point — it turns a value into something a programme can be held to.
What that produces is not a policy document. It produces workbenches: a structured pass over a real programme that ends in an owned action register with named responsibility, a review date and an escalation path that does not depend on the goodwill of the person being escalated about.
6 builds · verified reachable
Each of these takes one domain and turns the framework into a pass someone can actually run. All are browser-local; none transmits what you enter.
LiveLive · advisory site; the fifteen prototype modules are retired
Presents evidence-led governance modules and human-supervised institutional advisory work, and is the current home of the work that the fifteen retired M-series prototypes were the first attempt at.
LiveLive
Runs a programme and decision scan across scheduling, recovery, safeguarding, environment, athlete voice and escalation, then produces an owned action register and a 90-day governance roadmap with named responsibility and an independent response and review path.
PausedRelease review open · public link held
Structures spatial observation into evidence-aware design hypotheses, runs an accessibility review, prioritises the resulting changes, and sets up post-occupancy measurement so a hypothesis can be checked after the space is occupied.
The public link is held pending the release review recorded against this build. The deployment answers, and its content is described above, but it is not promoted from this site until that review clears.
PausedRelease review open · public link held
Helps a person assemble what they are actually asking, what is known about it, and what to raise with a clinician, and produces a prepared set of appointment questions. Everything stays in the browser.
The public link is held pending the release review recorded against this build. Health-facing guidance is promoted only after that review clears, whatever the deployment currently returns.
LiveLive
Works through AI system inventory, risk triage, controls, evaluation, incidents and human oversight, and exports the result as an evidence pack. Everything stays in the browser.
LiveLive · v2, August 2026
Evaluates one specific child-facing AI use across five age-aware stages: context, the role AI will play, what cognitive work it may substitute for, adult involvement, consequence level, and data and human safeguards. The decision logic is inspectable rather than hidden, and the output names the developmental capacities to protect, the questions to put to a vendor or school, and the signals to monitor.
Statuses come from the generated inventory behind the complete build index, not from this page, so an initiative page cannot describe more than is actually deployed.
What was retired
The first attempt at this work split institutional governance into fifteen numbered assessable domains, from governance and accountability through to implementation readiness, each with its own deployment.
That approach did not survive contact with use. Fifteen separate assessments produced fifteen separate conversations and no single place where a decision got made, which is the failure mode the framework exists to name. The modules were retired rather than quietly repurposed.
Their deployments are still online, serving a retirement notice. A link to one of them resolves to an honest statement rather than a 404 — or, worse, a working-looking assessment form that nobody maintains. They are listed in the build index under their own heading, as retired, because pretending they were never built would be its own inaccuracy.
Evidence boundary
The case study documents the framework, the assessment modules, the evidence, the intelligence, the education and the advisory architecture without treating a proposed capability as a verified outcome. The workbenches are issue-spotting instruments: none of them is a safeguarding audit, an accessibility certification, a clinical determination or a legal opinion, and each says so on its own page rather than only here.
See the sibling initiative, Institutions of One →