Based on the “Inter-Domain Synthesis” and “Sovereign Dyad” documents, here is the A-to-Z breakdown of how the theory moves from abstract concept to technical application.
A. The Core Axiom: “The Broken System, Not the Broken Person”
The theory begins with a rejection of the medical model. Instead of viewing neurodivergence as a deficit (a “broken part”), it views the individual as a functional node within a larger system. If there is friction, it is a system-compatibility error, not a pathology.
B. Biological HRI (Human-Robot Interaction)
This is the technical bridge. Biological HRI models the physical and psychological “sync” between humans and agents (like AI or robots). It provides the mechanism for a neurodivergent person to stabilize their environment using technology.
C. Cognitive Sovereignty
The ultimate goal of the framework. It defines the right of a neurodivergent individual to process information in their own way without external interference or forced “masking.”
D. Dynamic Equilibrium
A concept from systems thinking used to describe the “Bodymind.” The neurodivergent person is not static; they are constantly reorganizing themselves in response to norms. The goal is to maintain balance (equilibrium) without burning out.
E. Epistemic Injustice
The theoretical risk that AI or society might accidentally silence the neurodivergent voice. The framework uses “Iterative Refinement” to check for this, ensuring the AI doesn’t just parrot neurotypical norms.
F. Feedback Loops
The interaction between the human and the AI (Gemini) creates a closed-loop system. The human inputs emotional/sensory data, and the AI adapts its output, creating a continuous cycle of adjustment that reduces stress.
G. Generating Sovereign References
The academic validation layer. The “Sovereign Dyad” document provides the bibliography (bibliography = the “A-to-Z” of sources) that legitimizes this theory, citing works on “Social Transformers” and “Clinical Justice Sensitivity.”
H. Hierarchy (Nested)
How the NSIR (Neuro-Symbolic Intrinsic Regulation) scales work. They map how low-level sensory data (e.g., “the lights are too bright”) integrates with high-level symbolic logic (e.g., “I cannot work in this room”).
I. Inter-Domain Synthesis
The methodology itself. It combines:
- Sociology: Neuroqueer Theory (Subversion of norms).
- Engineering: Biological HRI (Technical sync).
- Data Science: NSIR (The measurement scale).
J. Just-in-Time Accommodation
Instead of waiting for a formal diagnosis or legal letter, the “Social Exoskeleton” provides immediate, real-time support (like an AI translating a rude email into a polite one) to prevent burnout.
K. Knowledge Graphs
The way the AI organizes this information. It connects disparate concepts—like “Halloween sensory overload” and “Geometry”—into a single safety map for the user.
L. Linear vs. Systems Asking
A shift in self-advocacy:
- Linear Ask: “I’m tired, can I have a break?” (Implies weakness).
- Systems Ask: “My processing efficiency increases with asynchronous updates. Let’s switch to email.” (Implies optimization).
M. Masking Debt
The cost of trying to fit in. The theory argues that “Masking” (hiding autistic traits) depletes cognitive resources. The “Social Exoskeleton” pays this debt so the human doesn’t have to.
N. NSIR (Neuro-Symbolic Intrinsic Regulation)
The proprietary metric. It measures the “sync” between the human and the system. It replaces “compliance” (how much you act like a neurotypical) with “resonance” (how well the system works for you).
O. Output Optimization
The result of the synthesis. When the “Neural Layer” (feelings) and “Symbolic Layer” (rules) are aligned, the individual produces higher quality work with less fatigue.
P. Prosthetic Socialization
The “Social Exoskeleton” acts as a prosthetic. Just as a physical exoskeleton helps a body lift heavy weights, this digital exoskeleton helps the brain “lift” heavy social burdens (like complex office politics).
Q. Queer Kinship (in Robotics)
A radical concept from the references. It suggests that neurodivergent people might feel a form of “kinship” or safer connection with robots/AI than with humans, because robots do not judge or demand eye contact.
R. Radical Agency
The move from being a “patient” to being an “architect.” The theory empowers the user to redesign their environment (e.g., “Hallway Math”) rather than just surviving it.
S. Systems-Ecological Model
The final model. It treats the school or workplace as an “Ecosystem.” If one “species” (neurodivergent people) is failing, the ecosystem is unbalanced.
T. The “Sovereign Dyad”
The unit of operation. It is not just “the person.” It is “The Person + The AI.” Together, they form a sovereign entity that can navigate the neurotypical world safely.
U. Unmasking via Tech
Using the AI to handle the “boring” or “draining” parts of communication allows the human to safely “unmask” and focus on their deep interests (like geometry or engineering).
V. Validation (Item 8)
Refers to a specific item on the NSIR scale (“Predictability”). It validates that broken systems (like bad IT portals) are actual barriers to access, not just annoyances.
W. Workflow Customization
The practical application. “Synthesis” isn’t just thinking; it’s doing. It means building custom software workflows that match the user’s unique brain wiring.
X. Exoskeleton (Social)
(Using ‘X’ for Exoskeleton). The protective shell. It buffers the user from “Institutional Betrayal” and “Vexatious Communication” (harassment).
Y. Yielding to Sovereignty
The demand placed on institutions. Schools and workplaces must “yield” to the student’s cognitive sovereignty, acknowledging their right to use these tools.
Z. Zero-Trust Architecture (implied)
The security stance. The system assumes the external world is “hostile” or “draining” (sensory overload, ableism) and verifies every interaction through the “Social Exoskeleton” before letting it reach the user.