PULSE evidence map

This map answers one concrete question: what authority does each PULSE component have today, and what does it not authorize us to claim? It does not produce a total score or turn abundant documentation into validation.

Component	Status	Admissible support	Decisive boundary
PULSE identity and definition	Constitutional	PULSE DNA and Identity	Owner authority, not empirical effectiveness
Decision First and PDAMR	Constitutional and practice	DNA, Identity and complete author POV	No external performance comparison exists
Decision Circle	Constitutional	DNA and Identity	The cycle organizes practice; it does not prove learning
Five verbs	Practice synthesis	Author POV and constitutional sources	They are not a universal sequence
Human-in-Control	Constitutional principle	DNA, Identity and BoK controls	Documenting it does not guarantee effective control
Decision Experience	Candidate contract	Derived architecture and specification	Requires evaluation with real users and tasks
L0–L7 architecture	Candidate derived architecture	SRC-ARCH-001	Not approved doctrine or a validated architecture
Five levels of analytics	Author pedagogical framework	SRC-JF-006	Not a universal maturity scale
Interoception, allostasis and decision organism	Metaphors and hypotheses	Derived architecture	Not causal mechanisms or biological equivalence
Longitudinal record	Learning hypothesis	DNA, architecture and Measurement Record	Recording does not prove behavior or outcome change
B2B case	Instrumented, unexecuted design	MVP design and simulated data	No real action, observed outcome or attribution

Claim compatibility

• Constitutional sources may govern PULSE definitions.
• An author POV may explain lineage or purpose.
• A derived architecture may support a candidate design hypothesis.
• None of those classes can establish superiority or effectiveness by itself.
• SRC-JF-001 and SRC-JF-003 remain blocked because their copies are truncated.
• An AI-assisted synthesis does not replace an original source or validate the architecture.

Open tensions

Practical framework versus technology ladder

The five-level framework may help teach analytics capabilities, but it conflicts with Decision First if interpreted as a requirement to “move up” before defining the decision. It remains a pedagogical taxonomy, not a mandatory maturity path.

Biological metaphor versus causal explanation

Interoception and allostasis can generate useful questions about signals, feedback and adaptation. The risk is turning verbal similarity into a mechanism. Any derived prediction must be observable without requiring the metaphor to be literally true.

Integration versus originality

PULSE may create value through selection and coordination even when many components have antecedents. Assembly originality, theoretical novelty and effectiveness are separate claims requiring separate evidence.

Next evidence threshold

Before an effectiveness claim is strengthened, a pilot needs:

1. a decision, population and comparator defined in advance;
2. a verifiable baseline and evidence quality;
3. operational human authority and stop conditions;
4. outcome, process, adoption and risk measured separately;
5. enough follow-up to observe action and learning;
6. publication of adverse, null and cost results.

See the machine-readable governance/registries/evidence-profiles.yml for complete provenance, rights and profiles.