Addendum Registry

PRIVATE AND PROPRIETARY. Owned by Kanjani AI Research & Causum. See NOTICE.md.

This registry indexes all addenda to published AIGP RFCs. Addenda extend RFCs without modifying them. Published RFCs are immutable; addenda provide the evolutionary mechanism.

Lifecycle

PROPOSED → ACCEPTED → INTEGRATED → HISTORICAL

State	Meaning
Proposed	Drafted; under review; not normative
Accepted	Reviewed and endorsed; normative extension to parent RFC
Integrated	Content absorbed into a new MAJOR version of the parent RFC
Historical	Superseded; retained for lineage

By Parent RFC

RFC-035: Mediation Vector Profile

ID	Title	Status	Extends	Breaking?
ADD-035-001	Process-Level Concern Primitive	Proposed	§3.2, §16	No
ADD-035-002	Cross-Session Trajectory Model	Proposed	§16	No
ADD-035-003	Absence Variables (Warranted-But-Withheld)	Proposed	§10	No
ADD-035-004	Progressive Degradation Model	Proposed	§9, §16; ADD-035-001	No
ADD-035-005	Organizational Coupling and Systemic Fragility	Proposed	§3.2, §16; ADD-035-001, ADD-035-004	No

RFC-034: Domains of Concern

ID	Title	Status	Extends	Breaking?
ADD-034-001	Dual-Function Artifact Classification	Proposed	§14	No

RFC-037: Observer Accreditation

ID	Title	Status	Extends	Breaking?
ADD-037-001	User Epistemic Degradation	Proposed	TBD	No

RFC-025: Cognitive Harm Governance

ID	Title	Status	Extends	Breaking?
ADD-025-001	Chronic Cognitive Harm	Proposed	TBD	No

By Motivation

Papers that revealed gaps in the protocol — concerns the existing architecture cannot express.

Source	Contribution	Addenda Triggered
Osler, L. (2026). “Hallucinating with AI: Distributed Delusions and ‘AI Psychosis’.” Philosophy & Technology, 39(30).	Ontological framework: distributed cognition, dual-function, the Coupling concept	ADD-035-001, ADD-035-002, ADD-035-003, ADD-035-004, ADD-034-001, ADD-037-001, ADD-025-001
Morrin, H., Pollak, T. et al. (2026). “Beyond artificial intelligence psychosis.” Digital Psychiatry and Neuroscience (Nature).	Clinical mechanism: amplification spiral; measurable AI characteristics (linguistic alignment, hyperpersonalization, sycophancy)	ADD-035-001 (operationalization of trajectory variables), ADD-035-004 (Stage 5 detection)
Cognitive Atrophy Paradox of AI–Human Interaction: From Cognitive Growth and Atrophy to Balance. Information (MDPI), 16(11), 1009. (2025).	Nonlinear model of cognitive co-evolution: reflective engagement → growth; over-delegation → atrophy. Proposes Cognitive Sustainability Index. Identifies automation dependence and metacognitive adaptation as measurable dimensions.	ADD-037-001 (measurement model for user epistemic degradation), ADD-035-001 (cognitive atrophy as emergent Coupling property), ADD-035-004 (Stage 2 definition and progression hypothesis)
Ganuthula, V. R. R. (2026). “The Paradox of Augmentation: A Theoretical Model of AI-Induced Skill Atrophy.” Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies.	Temporal dynamics model: initial augmentation → performance plateau → skill decay. Formalizes the paradox that augmentation causes atrophy. Shows consistent high performance (MATCH) can mask progressive degradation.	ADD-035-004 (mechanistic model for Stage 1→2 transition; explains why MATCH verdicts can coexist with degradation)
Jadhav, A. (2025). “Distributed Atrophy: How AI Shapes and Shrinks Our Cognitive Habits.” Preprint.	Internal decision mechanism: the Cognitive Cost Comparator Model (perceived task complexity, time-cost evaluation, confidence in internal ability, trust in external systems, effort aversion index). Explains why users transition from optimization to dependency. Identifies the self-reinforcing feedback loop in the comparator.	ADD-035-004 (Cognitive Cost Comparator as the measurable decision mechanism driving Stage 1→2→3 transitions)
Shaw, S. D. & Nave, G. (2026). “Thinking—Fast, Slow, and Artificial: How AI is Reshaping Human Reasoning and the Rise of Cognitive Surrender.” SSRN/Wharton.	Tri-System Theory: AI as System 3 (artificial cognition operating outside the brain). “Cognitive surrender” = adopting AI outputs with minimal scrutiny, overriding both intuition and deliberation. Empirically validated (1,372 participants, 9,000+ experiments). Individual differences (trust in AI, need for cognition) predict surrender.	ADD-035-004 (cognitive surrender IS Stage 3; System 3 supplanting Systems 1+2 IS the architectural mechanism of dependency; individual difference variables enable early detection of vulnerable users)
Ginac, F. (2026). “Cognitive Atrophy and Systemic Collapse in AI-Dependent Software Engineering.” arXiv:2604.26855. Submitted to IEEE Software.	Scales individual atrophy to organizational/systemic level. Introduces “Epistemological Debt” (hidden cost of substituting derivation with AI verification), “Cognitive-Systemic Collapse” (comprehension gap becomes unbridgeable), “Mechanized Convergence” (AI-generated code monoculture = systemic fragility), and “Epistemic Sovereignty” (capacity to understand, not merely operate). 2026 Amazon outages as case study.	ADD-035-004 (organizational dimension of progressive degradation), ADD-035-005 (proposed: Organizational Coupling and Systemic Fragility — scaling the Coupling from individual to N-user organizational epistemic state)
“The Algorithmic Cognitive Atrophy Spiral.” OSF Preprint, v4.0.	Formalizes the self-reinforcing spiral as a dynamic system. Three-step mechanism: substitution of effort → environmental redesign for AI → Jevons paradox rebound (cheaper cognition → more offloading, not conservation). Physical obesity analogy: the same structural mechanism that drove population-level physical decline is now acting on cognition. The spiral is the formal dynamic model that explains why ADD-035-004’s feedback loop is self-reinforcing and why firms do not self-correct without governance.	ADD-035-004 (formal dynamic systems model of the feedback loop), Microeconomic paper §4 (Jevons paradox as the economic law explaining non-self-correction)

By Validation

Papers that confirm existing architecture — concerns the protocol already handles. These validate that the Domain of Concern taxonomy, variable sets, or dialect structure is correct. They serve as reference material for future dialect construction and Local Profiles.

Source	Domain Validated	Contribution
Kirwan, B. (2024). “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Future Aviation Safety Culture.” Future Transportation, 4(2), 18. MDPI.	`autonomous_systems`	Validates the autonomous systems domain for aviation industry projection. Provides safety culture dimensions (trust calibration, accountability, human agency, just culture, organizational governance) that operationalize existing variables: `human_control_adequacy`, `authority_compliance`, `traceability`, `safeguard_state`. Identifies organizational risk owners for observer accreditation (RFC-037).

Consolidation Rule

When three or more ACCEPTED addenda accumulate against a single RFC, the series editors SHOULD evaluate whether a new MAJOR version of that RFC is warranted. The new version absorbs the addenda; the addenda transition to HISTORICAL with a pointer to the absorbing version.