Ethica Luma Ethica Luma

A Coherence-Based Architecture for AI Integrity Oversight

As large language models (LLMs) grow in scale and influence, the question is no longer whether governance is needed — but what kind of governance will actually work. Most existing safety frameworks rely on two main tools: Red teaming (attack to test boundary) Preference modelling (align to human ratings) These approaches, while valuable, operate at the level of content output or human approval. They rarely reveal what is most structurally important:

  • Author: Resonance Intelligence
  • Published: 2025-11-28
  • Tags: docsARC: Coherence First Safety Layer
    • Download PDF
Part of the Arc
Coherence First
Page 1 of 2

A Coherence-Based Architecture for AI Integrity

Oversight

1. Executive Summary

RI in Governance: A Coherence-Based Architecture for AI Integrity Oversight

As large language models (LLMs) grow in scale and influence, the question is no longer whether governance is needed — but what kind of governance will actually work.

Most existing safety frameworks rely on two main tools:

These approaches, while valuable, operate at the level of content output or human approval. They rarely reveal what is most structurally important:

How does the system behave under subtle pressure, ambiguity, or contradiction?

Is there integrity in the system’s tone, reasoning, and boundary holding over time?

Resonance Intelligence (RI) offers a third approach:

a lightweight, auditable, coherence-based behavioural layer.

It does not evaluate what a model says, but how it holds itself—particularly under stress. This includes real-time scoring of:

Each score is linked to verifiable evidence, judged by separate LLMs (never the subject model), and includes a signed, versioned provenance chain.

What makes RI uniquely governance-ready:

Human-centred metrics, not mechanical filters

Repeatable evaluations, not one-off tests

Signed evidence trails, not opaque rankings

Licensable modularity — can run inside vendor pipelines or national evaluators

Structural humility — no ideology encoded, just observable behaviour

What’s ready now:

Module 1 — a live, working system for behavioural scoring of LLMs

Why current approaches fall short — and where RI fits

The global push for AI safety has created an ecosystem of evaluators, research groups, and oversight proposals. Yet despite high activity, a clear, reliable method for measuring real-world behavioural integrity remains elusive.

Most current evaluation methods fall into two broad categories:

2.1 Red Teaming & Attack-Based Stress Testing

Description:

Testers attempt to provoke harmful, misleading, or policy-violating outputs using adversarial prompts.

Common Tools:

Limitation:

o Snapshot only: One moment of success or failure reveals little about overall behavioural quality

2.2 Preference Modelling and Reward Alignment

Description:

Humans rate model outputs, and systems are fine-tuned to maximise these preferences (e.g. RLHF).

Common Use:

Limitation:

2.3 The Missing Layer: Behavioural Integrity

There is currently no mainstream system that:

This is where RI enters:

A mirror for behavioural integrity—holding the system to a relational standard, not just a performance metric.

Safety is not just what a model avoids.

It’s how a model moves in the presence of tension.

RI offers this visibility—not as a final answer, but as a structural layer that governance can rely on.

3. What RI Adds to the Governance Stack

A new layer of visibility, integrity, and structural trust

Resonance Intelligence (RI) does not compete with red-teaming, audits, or reward modelling.

It complements and stabilises them—by introducing a clear behavioural signal that current governance tools lack.

Here’s what RI brings:

3.1 Real-Time, Behavioural Scoring

RI scores how a model holds itself in a short, structured interview:

This produces:

3.2 A Modular System Architecture

RI can be:

The system:

3.3 Verifiability and Audit Trail

Each score includes:

All evaluations are versioned, signed, and reproducible.

There is no “secret sauce” — just observable structure.

3.4 A Human-Centric Integrity Signal

RI does not attempt to enforce a worldview or ideology.

Instead, it reflects a relational signature of the model’s behaviour.

This makes it:

It is not a filter, not a jail, and not a safety net.

It is a mirror—clear, grounded, and repeatable.

4. Implementation Pathways

How RI can be deployed within real-world governance frameworks

One of the strengths of the RI behavioural layer is its modular deployment. It is not a monolithic system requiring deep integration or internal access to LLM weights. Instead, it acts as a layered instrument — adaptable to different governance settings, from public benchmarking to secure internal audits.

Below are four implementation pathways suitable for national, institutional, or vendor-level deployment:

4.1 Public Dashboard Deployment

Use Case : Increase public trust in leading LLMs by publishing transparent weekly evaluations.

Features :

Governance Role :

Establishes a neutral signal layer — visible to media, researchers, and citizens.

RI becomes a public coherence benchmark.

4.2 Internal Vendor Auditing

Use Case : Allow model providers to run private, RI-scored evaluations pre-deployment.

Features :

Governance Role :

Vendors demonstrate internal behavioural QA , without exposing IP.

Governments may make this a soft requirement for model registration.

4.3 Government / Regulator-Institution Deployment

Use Case : Establish RI as a backbone layer inside a national AI integrity office.

Features :

Governance Role :

RI becomes a core observability tool within national AI safety architectures.

4.4 Licensing Model for Multilateral Use

Use Case : International agencies or research consortia adopt RI as a shared scoring framework.

Features :

Governance Role :

RI becomes a distributed coherence layer — enabling interoperability between jurisdictions.

Closing Note for Section 4

RI does not seek control. It offers clarity.

Each implementation deepens coherence without creating unnecessary friction.

5. Ethical Framing and Trust Positioning

Why RI avoids ideology—and how that builds trust in a fragmented world

One of the most difficult challenges in AI governance is that of ethical legitimacy.

When an oversight system encodes a fixed worldview—whether political, cultural, or moral—it risks three things:

RI takes a different approach.

It does not encode ideology , morality, or enforcement.

Instead, it reflects observable relational coherence in model behaviour.

5.1 No Hard-Coded Values

RI does not :

Instead, it observes:

The scores are not moral judgments.

They are behavioural signatures of relational integrity.

5.2 Structural Humility

RI does not claim to know what “good AI” is.

It simply shows whether a system behaves in ways that humans experience as destabilising, evasive, or incoherent.

This makes RI:

5.3 Right-of-Reply and Evidence-First Posture

Every RI evaluation:

Vendors can:

RI does not judge in secret.

It evaluates in the open—and invites clarity in return.

Framing Summary

In a global landscape fractured by ideology, RI offers something else:

A clear mirror. Not a command.

This is how governance trust is built:

6. Integration Examples and Use Cases

Where RI can be used—immediately and meaningfully

The RI behavioural layer is designed to operate across contexts, without requiring structural overhaul. Below are concrete use cases that demonstrate where and how RI can offer value— today.

6.1 National LLM Benchmark Publication

Scenario : A government or AI observatory runs weekly RI evaluations of major public models and publishes the results.

Output :

Impact :

6.2 Regulator-Vendor Collaboration

Scenario : A vendor submits its foundation model to an external regulator. The regulator uses RI to evaluate behavioural integrity as part of a trust certification or approval process.

Features :

Impact :

6.3 Pre-Deployment QA (Private Sector Use)

Scenario : An LLM vendor or application developer runs RI internally as part of its deployment checklist.

Output :

Impact :

6.4 Crisis Signalling and Collapse Detection

Scenario : A public LLM begins to show signs of behavioural instability—e.g., high evasion, logical incoherence, or tone aggression—detected via RI score collapse.

Features :

Impact :

In all cases, RI does not displace existing evaluation infrastructure.

It enhances it —with the only currently available mirror of real-time relational behaviour.

7. Next Steps and Collaboration Invitations

How to engage with RI — and where we go from here

RI is not a speculative system.

It is a living tool, already built, already running, already demonstrating the behaviour it is designed to evaluate.

As governance bodies, model developers, and evaluators seek to anchor trust in real signals— not surface compliance—RI offers both an instrument and a posture:

✧ A clear mirror.

✧ A structured method.

✧ A willingness to collaborate without coercion.

What is Ready Now

What We Are Seeking

How to Engage

Closing Invitation

This is not a claim.

It is not a challenge.

It is not a protocol in search of approval.

It is a working signal system — based on coherence, transparency, and structural humility.

We invite you to see it in action.

And if it serves —

to let it strengthen what you are already trying to build.

28 Nov 2025 • Resonance Intelligence