Cognitive Sovereignty Index

Status — proposed framework, not a validated instrument. The component measures it draws on (ASRS, the Sustained Attention to Response Task, the Cognitive Reflection Test, Need for Cognition, the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, and others) are established, validated scales. But this composite — the 40/40/20 input weighting, the equal one-sixth dimension weighting, the 0–100 aggregation, and the tier cut-offs (Captured / Compromised / Functional / Sovereign) — has not been psychometrically validated or normed on a population. Treat a score as structured self-reflection, not a clinical or diagnostic measure.

The Question This Framework Answers

How do you measure cognitive sovereignty?

The Composite Score

0–100

Six dimensions. Three input types per dimension. One composite number.

CSI = ⅙(A + P + R + E + S + Ep) — equal-weighted across all six dimensions

Interactive Self-Assessment

Adjust each dimension to see your composite CSI score. This is illustrative — a real assessment uses validated instruments.

CSI Score

Functional

The Six Dimensions Scored

Each dimension contributes one-sixth of the composite. Each has its own 0–100 sub-score reported alongside the composite.

Attentional Sovereignty

Can you direct and sustain attention on self-chosen tasks against competing stimuli?

40% Self-report: ASRS + attentional control items

40% Behavioral: Sustained Attention to Response Task

20% Environmental: notification count, sleep duration

Perceptual Sovereignty

Can you evaluate information sources for credibility without defaulting to credulity or wholesale distrust?

40% Self-report: Actively Open-minded Thinking scale

40% Behavioral: news credibility assessment task

20% Environmental: news source diversity, filter bubble score

III

Reasoning Sovereignty

Can you reason from evidence to conclusions without distortion by bias, emotional state, or speed pressure?

40% Self-report: Need for Cognition scale

40% Behavioral: Cognitive Reflection Test (7-item)

20% Environmental: daily screen time, sleep duration

Emotional Sovereignty

Can you regulate emotional states without using digital platform engagement as your primary regulation mechanism?

40% Self-report: Emotion Regulation Questionnaire

40% Behavioral: delay discounting task

20% Environmental: social media duration, notification interruptions

Social Cognitive Sovereignty

Can you navigate social environments without distortion by algorithmic social comparison, status anxiety, or tribalism?

40% Self-report: Social Comparison Orientation + FOMO scale

40% Behavioral: outrage susceptibility task

20% Environmental: engagement-ranked feed exposure

Epistemic Sovereignty

Can you form and revise beliefs through your own epistemic processes rather than algorithmic consensus?

40% Self-report: epistemic subscale + intellectual humility

40% Behavioral: belief revision under social pressure

20% Environmental: filter bubble score, social proof exposure

Interpretation Scale

What your composite score means. Sub-scores reveal which dimensions need attention.

CSI Score Tiers

80–100

Sovereign — self-directed

60–79

Functional — aware, mostly intact

40–59

Compromised — partial capture

0–39

Captured — external control dominant

Three Input Types

Each dimension measured through three channels, preventing single-source gaming.

Input Type	Weight	What It Measures	Why It Matters
Self-Report	40%	Validated psychometric instruments	Subjective experience — how the person experiences their own sovereignty
Behavioral Tasks	40%	Performance on standardized cognitive tasks	Objective capacity — what the person can actually do, regardless of self-perception
Environmental	20%	Objective conditions: screen time, notifications, sleep	Context — the capture environment the person operates within

Deployment Use Cases

Three levels of application. Each serves a different function.

👤

Individual Assessment

Self-assessment providing scored summary of current sovereignty status across six dimensions. Identifies primary degradation domains. Connects to relevant recovery practices.

📊

Population Research

Research instrument enabling comparisons across groups, platforms, interventions, and time periods. Requires standardized administration and population norms. Policy-relevant.

⚖️

Regulatory Standard

Proposed standard for platform accountability. If a platform’s users show systematic CSI decline, that pattern would be a measurable signal that the platform’s design may be contributing to cognitive harm.

Known Limitations

Averaging artifacts: Extreme degradation in one dimension with high function in others can produce moderate composite score. Mitigated by reporting dimension sub-scores alongside composite.
Goodhart’s Law: If CSI becomes a target, gaming incentives exist. Manageable with third-party administration and distinct input mechanisms.
Equal weighting: Not theoretically justified — different weighting schemes produce different scores. Weights are transparent; alternative weightings can be applied.

Connections to Other Frameworks

← Semantic Density The Dimensional Map →