CAIS Compliance Boundary v1.0
The non-negotiable compliance boundary for CAIS claims and Sal-Meter designation
This page is the public landing page for the document whose sole function is boundary fixation. It defines the non-negotiable compliance boundaries that determine whether a device or system may legitimately claim CAIS compliance and use the designation “Sal-Meter.” It does not provide implementation guidance, experimental protocols, clinical claims, optimization strategies, or application examples. :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}
What this document does
This document defines the mandatory technical, sensing, and output constraints that all devices claiming CAIS compliance and Sal-Meter designation must satisfy. Any deviation beyond these boundaries constitutes non-compliance, regardless of intent, performance claims, or alternative interpretations. :contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}
What must be present at the sensing boundary
- Measure iodine redox states across the sequence I⁻ → I₂ → I₃⁻ → I₅⁻.
- Detect and quantify the GSH/GSSG redox ratio as part of the sensing system.
- Operate explicitly within the OE / RE / EE framework as defined by CAIS. :contentReference[oaicite:4]{index=4}
Failure to satisfy any Layer-0 constraint constitutes immediate non-compliance. :contentReference[oaicite:5]{index=5}
What must be output
- VCE normalized to a 0–1.0 scale
- CRI normalized to a 0–1.0 scale
- CFI normalized to a 0–1.0 scale
- Timestamp associated with each measurement record
- Raw signal data sufficient for independent verification and audit is optional but strongly recommended. :contentReference[oaicite:6]{index=6}
What invalidates CAIS compliance
- Introducing proprietary or renamed consciousness indices such as “Mind Score,” “Cognitive Index,” or similar replacements.
- Using closed or non-verifiable algorithms without independent validation.
- Bypassing or substituting iodine oxidation state measurement.
- Ignoring or omitting GSH/GSSG sensing. :contentReference[oaicite:7]{index=7}
Any prohibited deviation invalidates CAIS compliance. :contentReference[oaicite:8]{index=8}
What must be proven before a claim is valid
Minimum sample size
n ≥ 30. :contentReference[oaicite:9]{index=9}
Performance threshold
Sensitivity ≥ 80%; Specificity ≥ 85%. :contentReference[oaicite:10]{index=10}
Verifier
Independent verification by a SICS-designated CRO. :contentReference[oaicite:11]{index=11}
Status
Validation is mandatory and non-waivable. :contentReference[oaicite:12]{index=12}
What happens if the boundary is not met
- The system may not use the designation “Sal-Meter.”
- It may not claim CAIS compliance in any form.
- It is excluded from the official SICS registry.
- It is subject to public non-compliance declaration by SICS. :contentReference[oaicite:13]{index=13}
Who decides
SICS retains exclusive authority over interpretation of CAIS compliance boundaries, resolution of disputes, certification, suspension, revocation, and official recognition of compliant devices. This authority is explicitly non-transferable and non-derogable. :contentReference[oaicite:14]{index=14}
How this document functions within the Sal-Meter architecture
In the technical snapshot, CAIS Compliance Boundary v1.0 sits in the interpretation and governance layer together with the Open Competition Charter and From Theory to Implementation. Its role is to fix research-only scope, prohibited claims, and governance boundaries around implementation. :contentReference[oaicite:15]{index=15}
It also appears repeatedly in the core canonical set that all Sal-Meter implementations must reference alongside the Canonical Definition and Negative Definition.
Authority note
This page is a public landing page for reading, citation, and navigation. It does not create new authority and does not reinterpret the compliance boundary.
Canonical authority remains fixed only in the DOI-registered record. This page summarizes and routes. It does not override the compliance standard.