Institutional research into the physical evidence gap

4SI Research

Evidence before
assertion.

Independent research for advanced AI and high-consequence systems—beyond model-only analysis.

Research agenda

Four questions
define the work.

The program examines where physical evidence can change institutional control—and where it cannot.

  1. 01

    Expected human

    How can a system establish that the expected human is physically present for a specific action?

  2. 02

    Expected object

    How can a physical object remain verifiably bound to its claimed origin, custody and state?

  3. 03

    Renewed authority

    When should an intelligent system be required to obtain renewed, physically grounded authority?

  4. 04

    Material impact

    Which loss pathways can physical verification materially change—and at what cost?

Published work

One research program.
Multiple records.

Visual editions improve accessibility. DOI-backed and versioned records support durable citation.

4SI Perspective · July 2026

The Physical Evidence Gap

Why digitally valid evidence is not enough for high-consequence systems.

Read the perspective ↗
Frontier AI controls

Verification as a Control Primitive

A physically grounded authority condition for systems approaching consequential execution.

Read the visual edition ↗
Digital-physical boundary

Physical Trust at the Boundary

A systems view of people, objects and action where digital certainty is insufficient.

Read the visual edition ↗
Economic research

The Economics of Physical Verification

Loss pathways, intervention points and the cost conditions under which an added boundary may be justified.

Open the research note ↗
Research library

Scientific papers and persistent records

The full publication library, source index and citable records.

Open the library ↗
Evidence intelligence

Live source-backed signals

Connect the research thesis to current incidents, positions and scenario analysis.

Explore Intelligence →

Research standard

Make the boundary
of every claim visible.

Research quality depends on provenance, separation of fact and inference, explicit limitations and durable records.

01

Source

Prefer direct, official and persistent records. Identify provenance and date.

02

Separate

Distinguish documented fact, inference, proposed control logic and future capability.

03

Bound

State assumptions, boundary conditions, limitations and unresolved failure modes.

04

Preserve

Publish versioned records and DOI-backed papers where durable citation matters.

05

Correct

Keep material corrections visible and connected to the original record.

06

Test

Translate the claim into a question that a controlled workflow can answer.

Research collaboration

Bring one boundary worth testing.

We collaborate where a defined institutional problem can produce evidence useful beyond a single implementation.