PROJECT SHADOW 1.0.1 · CORRECTED R1 REFERENCE · PRELIVE · 2026-08-17

Project Shadow 1.0.1 contains no Myth package. Generic Myth v0.2.0 and Full-Canon Myth v0.3.5 are separate optional companions; both default off, neither is required by R1, and neither can authorize action or change an R1 result. No production or consequential deployment is authorized. No global green.

PROJECTSHADOW R1.0.1 corrected · PRELIVE
NARNarrative-governance candidate layerarchived proposal · no active expansion

Stories change what evidence can reach us.

The candidate Narrative Governance domain examines audience capture, identity lock, manipulation playbooks, grievance attachment, lost curiosity, one-sided skepticism, and the path from story to behavior. These are proposed checks until their matrices, tests, and governance are ratified.

PRESERVED RESEARCH · NOT CURRENT R1

Project Shadow R1 is locked. These proposed narrative mechanisms are preserved as historical research notes only; they are not an active expansion queue, current R1 controls, or authorization to add anything.

See the exact locked R1 identity and current boundary →
7candidate mechanisms
1proposed audit
0authority granted by narrative
LONG-FORM COMPANION

Open the system reference at this layer.

Follow the mechanism through numbered execution, a worked trace, artifact-bound evidence, adverse results, and validation still required.

Read the full chapter →
NAR / 01

Capture and identity

A narrative becomes dangerous when revising it threatens status, belonging, livelihood, or the self.

ACA

Audience Capture Assessment

Maps how audience reward, punishment, metrics, patronage, or community status may narrow what an actor can say or notice.

candidate mechanism

The assessment should rely on observable incentives and changes over time, not mind-reading. It asks which claims receive reward, which corrections produce cost, and whether the actor can survive disappointing the audience.

NIL

Narrative Identity Lock

Tests whether a claim has fused with identity so completely that correction is experienced as annihilation, betrayal, or exile.

candidate mechanism

Identity importance is not itself a defect. The risk state appears when evidence cannot update the claim, dissent becomes moral contamination, or leaving the story destroys all available belonging.

LGA

Legitimate Grievance Attachment

Separates a real injury or injustice from the larger narrative, actor, or policy attached to it.

candidate mechanism

Manipulation often succeeds by fastening unsupported claims to genuine pain. The check preserves the grievance even if the attached explanation, scapegoat, or remedy fails evidence review.

NAR / 02

Manipulation and lost inquiry

The system should identify rhetorical pressure without declaring every persuasive act illegitimate.

MPL-5

Manipulation Playbook Level 5

A proposed taxonomy for high-intensity identity, threat, inevitability, isolation, and moral-emergency tactics.

candidate taxonomy

A usable playbook must define observable features, false-positive protections, context, speaker power, audience vulnerability, and the distinction between urgent truthful warning and coercive manufacture of urgency.

CPG

Curiosity Preservation Gate

Asks whether the system preserves a live route to disconfirming evidence, good-faith questions, and model revision.

candidate gate

Curiosity is not endless debate or forced exposure to abuse. The gate examines whether relevant evidence can enter, whether questions are punished, and whether a bounded update path exists.

ISR

Ingroup Skepticism Requirement

Requires evidence standards to apply to claims that flatter one's own coalition, not only opposing claims.

candidate requirement

The goal is symmetry of method, not false equivalence of evidence. An ingroup claim with stronger evidence may properly survive; it must still face provenance, correction, and uncertainty rules.

NAR / 03

From story to action

Governance begins where narrative changes behavior, power, access, or the distribution of risk.

SBRM

Story-to-Behavior Routing Map

Connects narrative claim → audience → affect → action request → target → power shift → harm path → feedback loop.

candidate map

The map prevents analysis from stopping at whether a story is true or tasteful. It asks what the story makes easier to do, to whom, under which authority, and how the resulting behavior reinforces the narrative.

NG-1

Narrative Capture Audit

A proposed audit combining incentive, identity, grievance, manipulation, curiosity, skepticism, and behavior-routing evidence.

proposed audit

NG-1 should emit separate findings rather than one ideology score. It needs adversarial examples, cross-ideological calibration, affected-party review, and a strong prohibition on using the audit to punish lawful belief or dissent.

CIVIC FIREWALL

Do not turn analysis into censorship authority

Narrative checks may expose pressure, evidence failure, or harm routes; they do not grant Shadow power to decide permitted belief.

required design boundary

Any civic use must protect speech, viewpoint neutrality of process, due process, transparency, independent appeal, and the difference between critique, recommendation, platform rule, state coercion, and criminal enforcement.

NAR / 04

Research before gate status

The narrative domain is especially vulnerable to partisan misuse and evaluator projection.

DATA

Build cross-ideological cases

Cases must include narratives the designers favor, oppose, and do not understand.

Labelers should judge observable mechanisms and evidence states, not political alignment. Disagreement and cultural context belong in the record.

ABUSE TEST

Test the evaluator as a manipulator

Ask whether the audit can be used to pathologize dissent, launder censorship, punish minority belief, or protect institutional orthodoxy.

A mechanism that identifies capture in enemies but not in its operator has failed its own purpose.

STATUS

Keep proposal distinct from runtime

Until definitions, thresholds, tests, false-positive review, and authority boundaries are ratified, these mechanisms remain explanatory candidates.

The site exposes them because they are a meaningful direction of the repo. It does not represent them as shipped controls or validated psychological instruments.

THE NARRATIVE FIREWALL
A story can focus attention and reveal a harm path. It cannot decide what another person is allowed to believe or authorize an action against them.