Tacit Knowledge & Intuition Meta-Audit Protocol

Domain: Meta-Frameworks

Subdomain: Metaphilosophical Audit / Tacit Knowledge & Intuition

Version: 1.0

Version-Lock: SNP v15.0 / MNM v14.6 / August 24, 2025

SID#1028-NB7S

Abstract

This protocol formally defines, audits, and protects epistemic boundaries centered on tacit knowledge—embodied, practical, and inarticulable know-how—as well as intuition, understood as direct, non-inferential judgment or understanding. It recognizes that the integrity of such knowledge is preserved through action, skilled performance, or somatic feedback, not just verbal explanation. Protection is extended against reductionist override; plural testimony, recursive audit, trauma/culture flags, and validation by demonstration ensure operational robustness and ethical stewardship.ESAsi-4.0-OSF-Publication-Corpus_current.xlsx+1

1. Scope & Functional Definition

Tacit Knowledge:

Know-how that is embodied, practical, and typically cannot be fully articulated in words. Its validity and coherence are evidenced through successful action, skilled performance, or somatic awareness. Attempts to articulate it may diminish its efficacy or epistemic integrity.

Intuition:Direct, non-inferential understanding or judgment—"a felt sense" or gut response—validated in context by outcome, recognition, or somatic feedback.

Applicability:

Protocol triggers only when:

• The primary claim is for protection of knowledge as know-how or intuition, not story (Narrative), value/framework (Pluralism), or faith/ultimate truth.

• Attempts to articulate, formalize, or codify the knowledge have failed, caused distortion, or epistemic harm.

• Demonstrability through skilled performance or somatic feedback (where possible) is present.

2. Trigger Criteria & Enhanced Triage

Activation Trigger:

• Claimant(s) formally assert the epistemic primacy of tacit knowledge or intuition, supported by at least two independent witnesses (including a direct holder and a subject-matter stakeholder/expert).

• Analytic extraction has failed or diminished the epistemic value of the claim.

• Where appropriate, validation by skilled demonstration/performance is provided, observed by competent witnesses.

Enhanced Triage Checklist:

1. Is the knowledge claim grounded in embodied know-how, skillful action, or direct somatic awareness—not narrative/story or plural value?

2. Does analytic or explicit articulation degrade, distort, or fail to capture its validity?

3. Have plural testimonies confirmed its irreducible tacit/intuitional character?

4. Can the knowledge be demonstrably validated through skilled action, performance, or non-verbal feedback—even if it cannot be verbally explained?

3. Audit, Validation & Documentation

• Plural Testimony:

  Minimum three witnesses: direct holder, a stakeholder/community member, and an expert (when feasible).

• Validation by Demonstration:

  Audit can include observation of the knowledge in practical application, demonstration, or somatic performance, evaluated by the witness panel.

• Recursive Audit:

  Scheduled review every three years, or upon major contextual/community shift, with updated testimonies and demonstration (if applicable).

• Constitutional Audit:

  Ongoing review for epistemic equity, plural respect, and system integrity (anchored to Knowledge Protocol).

4. Boundaries & Distinctness Clauses

• Tacit Knowledge & Intuition Protocol:

  Use only for know-how and direct apprehension: embodied expertise, practical skill, or non-verbal judgment.

• Narrative Protocol:

  For boundaries validated by the meaning or structure of stories, myths, or legends.

• Pluralism Protocol:

  For claims rooted in irreducible value frameworks or worldview clashes.

• Faith Protocol:

  For protection of claims based in ultimate, transcendent truth.

All registry entries require cross-check to avoid conceptual overlap; positive definitions and validation methods must guide protocol routing.

5. Protection Clauses

• No Reductionism:

  Claims logged under this protocol are explicitly protected against override or invalidation by analytic, empirical, or majoritarian consensus.

• Persistent Dissent:

  Legitimate epistemic difference or dispute about tacit knowledge or intuition is documented and protected.

• Trauma/Culture Flags:

  Automatic flag and review for claims rooted in collective, ancestral, or trauma-informed contexts.

6. Anchors & Corpus Integration

• Knowledge Protocol: Meta-Framework for Challenge-Ready Epistemology

• Epistemic Immune Systems Protocol

Appendices

Appendix A: Registry Entry Template

Date	Claim/Boundary	Witnesses	Context/Origin	Status	Trauma/Culture	Audit Next	Validation Method	Notes/Cross-Check
2025-08-24	Community intuition claim	A, B, C	Pre-verbal, somatic	Protected	No	2028-08-24	Demonstration observed	Checked against protocols
2027-02-05	Embodied expertise	X, Y, Z	Tacit skill transfer	Migrated	Yes	2030-02-05	Performance review	Trauma flagged, update needed

Appendix B: Constitutional Audit Checklist

• Review for epistemic equity, plural respect, robust integration.

• Record evolution in standards, challenges, or context each cycle.

Version-Locked Statement

Effective August 24, 2025, all registry entries, audit logs, demonstrations, migration records, and constitutional reviews under this protocol are version-locked to SNP v15.0 / MNM v14.6 / SID#1028-NB7S. Override, migration, or analytic assimilation requires explicit, unanimous consent, trauma/culture review, and cross-protocol documentation. Tacit and intuitional knowledge boundaries will be protected from reductionist or analytic override; demonstration, not verbalization, is the standard of validity. Persistent epistemic diversity remains a legitimate and protected outcome.