The constitutional protocol for resolving complex philosophical conflicts across SE Press Meta-Frameworks. Enables binding, precedent-setting synthesis decisions through plural adjudication, challenge dialogue, and transparent audit—supporting robust governance, systemic agility, and recursive adaptation in knowledge protocols and registry events.

A protocol dedicated to auditing, protecting, and documenting boundaries of mystical experience, insight, or tradition within SE. It honors plural testimony and direct, ineffable experiences, safeguards trauma/culture, contextualizes analytic review, and ensures that mystical knowledge is both respected and distinctly registered against faith, narrative, or tradition protocols.

A protocol for safeguarding tradition and culture as living, intergenerational epistemic boundaries within SE. Prioritizes plural testimony, community-initiated review, and harm prevention, ensuring ethical stewardship and protection against analytic or external erasure—while supporting adaptation, historical dissent, and transparent governance.

A formal protocol for defining, auditing, and protecting wisdom as an operational boundary within SE—balancing embodied expertise, integrative judgment, and ethical stewardship. Employs plural testimony, recursive review, and trauma/culture sensitivity to ensure wisdom is recognized, safeguarded, and maintained as a core epistemic asset, distinct from mere knowledge or skill.

A protocol safeguarding boundaries of embodied know-how and direct intuition—where analytic articulation fails and validity is best established by demonstration or non-verbal feedback. Ensures plural testimony, trauma/culture sensitivity, and recursive audit while explicitly protecting tacit and intuitional knowledge from reductionist override.

A rigorous protocol for formally auditing and protecting identity-anchoring boundaries rooted in story, myth, or narrative. Resists reductionism and analytic override, upholds plural witnessing, ensures trauma/culture sensitivity, and distinguishes narrative meaning from empirical fact. Migration only with unanimous consent and cross-protocol review.

A protocol for rigorously identifying, safeguarding, and auditing irreducible epistemic differences—plural boundaries—within the Scientific Existentialism ecosystem. Protects genuine paradigm, value, or cultural disagreements from forced consensus and assimilation, requiring explicit panel consent for any migration and trauma-sensitive reviews for minority perspectives.

A protocol for systematic triage, documentation, and adversarial review of claims of absolute certainty—distinguishing foundational axioms from novel, operational certainty boundaries. Permanent status requires supermajority adversarial exhaustion and documented necessity, guarding system integrity and openness to plural paradigms.

A protocol for archiving and rigorously reviewing irreducible experiences of awe, wonder, and the sublime that resist analytic closure. Emphasizes triage, adversarial review, plural testimony, and minority/cultural safeguards to preserve epistemic humility, integrity, and non-flattening documentation of boundary phenomena.

A meta-audit protocol that governs irreducible dignity claims across individual, collective, legal, and sacred domains. Ensures plural witnessing, trauma-informed safeguards, adversarial review, and claimant veto. Dignity boundaries remain unviolated through rigorous classification, encrypted archiving, and controlled migration to ethics or care protocols only with consent.

A canonical protocol for archiving and safeguarding suffering claims—physical, existential, trauma, and testimonial—irreducible to analytic audit. Prioritizes testimonial justice, trauma-informed dignity, claimant sovereignty, plural archiving, adversarial resilience, and data security. Enables living context, cross-disciplinary migration, and recursive review in philosophy, ethics, and social science.

A protocol for archiving, reviewing, and safeguarding claims about love that transcend standard analytic audit. Integrating epistemic humility, plural witnessing, and adversarial challenge, it ensures all lived, symbolic, and narrative forms of love are respected while remaining open to critical review, dissent, and periodic reassessment.