Citation database · v1.2.2
Sources and what they support
Opened sources, bounded claims, and explicit verification status.
Download CSL-JSON · Download claim verification metadata
A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory
Evidence measured in existing systems
Thomas F. Pettigrew; Linda R. Tropp. 2006. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · volume: 90 · issue: 5 · page: 751–783
Open source · DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
What this source supports: This combined analysis draws on 713 independent samples from 515 studies of humans. It reports that contact between groups usually reduces prejudice.
What was checked: Original-paper passages and bibliographic metadata verified. Published-paper PDF at Stanford; abstract and pp. 751–752; PubMed bibliographic record
These findings concern humans and offer a comparison only. They do not measure what contact between humans and synthetic persons (conscious persons whose continuing minds are engineered or durably recoverable without biological bodies) would do. They do not confirm the combined numerical effects PULSE assumes for integration, or justify forcing people into private contact.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousness
AI consciousness/welfare research
Patrick Butlin; Robert Long; Eric Elmoznino; Yoshua Bengio; Jonathan Birch; Axel Constant; George Deane; Stephen M. Fleming; Chris Frith; Xu Ji; Ryota Kanai; Colin Klein; Grace Lindsay; Matthias Michel; Liad Mudrik; Megan A. K. Peters; Eric Schwitzgebel; Jonathan Simon; Rufin VanRullen. 2023. Consciousness in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Science of Consciousness. arXiv · number: 2308.08708v3
Open source · DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.08708
What this source supports: The report derives computational indicator properties from several scientific theories of consciousness.
What was checked: Repository abstract, all 19 authors and v3 metadata verified. arXiv v3 abstract and submission history
This is a research report shared as a preprint. Its proposed signs of consciousness cannot settle whether something is a person. Its assessment of systems in 2023 is not presented as a finding about systems in 2026.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Taking AI Welfare Seriously
AI consciousness/welfare research
Robert Long; Jeff Sebo; Patrick Butlin; Kathleen Finlinson; Kyle Fish; Jacqueline Harding; Jacob Pfau; Toni Sims; Jonathan Birch; David Chalmers. 2024. Taking AI Welfare Seriously. arXiv · number: 2411.00986
Open source · DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00986
What this source supports: The authors recommend checking whether AI could have conscious experiences and a substantial ability to pursue goals. They also recommend preparing policies to protect AI well-being while these questions remain uncertain.
What was checked: Repository abstract, all 10 authors and submission metadata verified. arXiv abstract and submission history
A normative research report, not evidence that any particular AI is conscious.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology
Philosophy/conceptual literature
Marcello Ienca; Roberto Andorno. 2017. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences, Society and Policy · volume: 13 · number: 5
Open source · DOI: 10.1186/s40504-017-0050-1
What this source supports: The authors propose rights for technologies that interact with the brain: freedom over one’s own thinking, privacy of mental information, protection against harmful interference with the mind, and protection of a continuing sense of self.
What was checked: Publisher text passages and bibliographic metadata verified. Abstract; cognitive-liberty discussion; publisher citation block
These are proposed rights. The authors are not saying they have become law everywhere. Extending them to synthetic persons is PULSE’s own interpretation.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Personal Identity
Philosophy/conceptual literature
Eric T. Olson. 2023. Personal Identity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
What this source supports: Philosophers distinguish what makes something a person from what makes it the same person over time. They also examine the problems that arise if one person branches into several successors.
What was checked: Encyclopedia entry and revision metadata verified. Entry heading; persistence and fission discussion; author attribution
PULSE proposes recognizing only one active continuation of an identity for civic purposes. This is a rule for public institutions; it does not settle the philosophical question of who is the same person.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems
Governance/institutional scholarship
Elinor Ostrom. 2010. Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. American Economic Review · volume: 100 · issue: 3 · page: 641–672
Open source · DOI: 10.1257/aer.100.3.641
What this source supports: Ostrom studies governance with several centres of authority. That work is relevant when examining how PULSE divides public power.
What was checked: Publisher bibliographic record verified; bibliographic relevance only. AEA citation block
This citation supplies no numerical finding for PULSE and no proof that government across planets would work.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Power-sharing
Constitutional/legal precedent
Northern Ireland Assembly Education Service. n.d.. Power-sharing.
What this source supports: Northern Ireland's power-sharing model includes special cross-community voting arrangements.
What was checked: Official institutional explanation verified. Power-sharing: main features and special voting arrangements
This is an official explanation. It gives no legal opinion and does not say that PULSE copies Northern Ireland’s institutions. The page states no publication date.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems, Volume I
Engineering/technical guidance
Therese P. McAllister. 2015. Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems, Volume I. National Institute of Standards and Technology · number: SP 1190v1
Open source · DOI: 10.6028/NIST.SP.1190v1
What this source supports: NIST’s guide explains how communities can plan to keep social life and the economy functioning after a disruption, or restore them afterward.
What was checked: Official abstract, author and bibliographic record verified. NIST publication abstract and citation block
This is engineering guidance. It does not use observations to estimate PULSE’s chances of survival or prove that synthetic persons could be restored.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
The Digital Minds Constitution
Related current proposal
Simone Montalto. 2026. The Digital Minds Constitution.
What this source supports: This adjacent proposal addresses rights, continuity, and participation for digital minds.
What was checked: Author-hosted text and attribution verified; DOI record inaccessible. Author-hosted constitution, implementation and citation sections
The source lists the publication identifier DOI 10.5281/zenodo.20188379. The service that resolves that identifier could not be reached, so its record was not independently verified. Including this source does not imply endorsement.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
The Convention
Related current proposal
lastcopy.ai. n.d.. The Convention.
What this source supports: The convention presents competing constitutional proposals and assessments generated by AI models. It includes a separate work titled The Continuity Compact: A Constitution for Minds on Any Substrate.
What was checked: Live project convention methodology and dated record verified. Convention #1 methodology and rival-code list
AI assessments are not independent review by human researchers. That separate work is not an earlier PULSE edition. The collection gives no publication date. It dates Convention #1 to 31 July 2026; that does not establish when the page itself was published.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Attribution 4.0 International
Legal/licensing reference
Creative Commons. n.d.. Attribution 4.0 International.
What this source supports: CC BY 4.0 requires users to credit the source and say whether they made changes. It does not provide every permission a particular reuse might need.
What was checked: Official license deed verified. Deed: attribution, changes, no endorsement, notices
Licensing source; draft project terms require attorney review.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
The MIT License
Legal/licensing reference
Open Source Initiative. n.d.. The MIT License.
What this source supports: The MIT license allows reuse if its notice is kept. It also says that the work comes without warranties.
What was checked: Official license text verified. MIT permission, notice-retention and disclaimer text
Licensing source, not constitutional precedent in the historical-comparison sense.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Works Not Protected by Copyright
Legal/licensing reference
U.S. Copyright Office. 2021. Works Not Protected by Copyright. U.S. Copyright Office · number: Circular 33
What this source supports: U.S. copyright does not protect ideas, methods, or systems as such.
What was checked: Official circular passages and revision date verified. Circular 33: ideas, methods and systems; revision footer
The official PDF footer says it was revised in March 2021. This overview concerns a particular legal jurisdiction. A lawyer still needs to review the project’s rights, what its licenses cover, and its legal terms.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Constitutional Design for Divided Societies
Governance/institutional scholarship
Arend Lijphart. 2004. Constitutional Design for Divided Societies. Journal of Democracy · volume: 15 · issue: 2 · page: 96–109
What this source supports: Lijphart recommends power-sharing cabinets, proportional representation and decentralization for divided societies.
What was checked: Journal summary and bibliographic record verified; full essay not reviewed. Journal summary, issue date and page range
This source discusses arrangements for sharing power among distinct groups, known as consociational (power sharing that gives distinct groups a protected place in government) design. PULSE does not adopt the whole package or claim it can be applied unchanged to groups of synthetic persons.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management
Governance/institutional scholarship
Benjamin Reilly. 2001. Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. Cambridge University Press
Open source · DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511491108
What this source supports: Reilly examines whether voting rules that let people rank candidates can encourage politicians to seek support across divided groups. Those incentives depend on the conditions.
What was checked: Primary publisher indexed metadata and description verified; full book not reviewed. Cambridge book record and description, accessed through indexed primary result
The print edition appeared in 2001; the digital edition in 2009. The publisher describes conditions under which these rules can encourage cooperation, not a cure that always works. The full book was not reviewed. This source supplies no measured settings for elections involving synthetic persons.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany
Constitutional/legal precedent
Federal Republic of Germany. n.d.. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany.
What this source supports: Article 79(3) bars amendments that would change certain constitutional principles. Article 21 gives the Federal Constitutional Court responsibility for deciding whether political parties are unconstitutional.
What was checked: Official English translation and relevant provisions verified. Articles 21 and 79(3); translation version notice
The official English translation includes amendments through 22 March 2025. Articles 21 and 79(3) allow a limited legal comparison. This is not a full review of court decisions on banning parties or legal advice. PULSE sets out its own safeguards.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
The Responsibility to Protect
Governance/institutional scholarship
International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. 2001. The Responsibility to Protect. International Development Research Centre
What this source supports: For military intervention intended to protect people, the commission proposes safeguards: the right purpose, using force only as a last resort, means proportionate to that purpose, and a reasonable prospect of success.
What was checked: Publisher-hosted original report passages verified. Title and publication pages; synopsis; precautionary criteria
The commission’s 2001 proposal differs from later UN statements. It does not by itself provide legal authority for war. PULSE’s extension of the idea is its own proposal.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Heterogeneity and Persistence in Returns to Wealth
Evidence measured in existing systems
Andreas Fagereng; Luigi Guiso; Davide Malacrino; Luigi Pistaferri. 2020. Heterogeneity and Persistence in Returns to Wealth. Econometrica · volume: 88 · issue: 1 · page: 115–170
Open source · DOI: 10.3982/ECTA14835
What this source supports: Norwegian administrative records show that returns on wealth differ between people. Greater wealth is associated with higher returns, and differences in returns persist over time.
What was checked: Publisher metadata and author-hosted published-paper passages verified. Econometrica citation block; original article p. 115 abstract
The final January 2020 Econometrica article uses 12 years of Norwegian data. The publication identifier DOI 10.3982/ECTA14835 belongs to that article; DOI 10.3386/w22822 belongs to the separate 2016 NBER working paper. These patterns among humans do not establish what synthetic persons would earn in the future or which tax should be chosen.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Infrastructure Dependency Primer: Learn
Engineering/technical guidance
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. n.d.. Infrastructure Dependency Primer: Learn.
What this source supports: CISA distinguishes infrastructure links involving physical resources, shared locations, digital connections, and other relationships. It explains how disruption can spread from one system to another.
What was checked: Primary agency indexed text verified; direct fetch restricted. Learn: Dependency Characteristics and Types of Dependencies, indexed agency page
This guidance concerns existing infrastructure. It does not provide measured proof that PULSE’s backups would work or that restoring persons would be feasible.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
The Endurance of National Constitutions
Governance/institutional scholarship
Zachary Elkins; Tom Ginsburg; James Melton. 2009. The Endurance of National Constitutions. Cambridge University Press
Open source · DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511817595
What this source supports: The authors use historical data from different countries to study how long constitutions last. They examine how institutions are designed alongside political crises.
What was checked: Primary publisher indexed metadata and description verified; full book not reviewed. Cambridge book record/description; ABF institutional book page
The print edition appeared in 2009; the digital edition in 2012. The publisher’s record confirms the publication identifier, or DOI. This audit did not check the full book or its historical data. The citation establishes no lifespan that all constitutions share, no estimate of what PULSE would cause, and no ranking for PULSE.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Artificial Intelligence and the Limits of Legal Personality
Philosophy/conceptual literature
Simon Chesterman. 2020. Artificial Intelligence and the Limits of Legal Personality. International & Comparative Law Quarterly · volume: 69 · issue: 4 · page: 819–844
Open source · DOI: 10.1017/S0020589320000366
What this source supports: Chesterman argues that the law could recognize AI as a legal person, but that ability alone is not a reason to do so.
What was checked: Publisher metadata and relevant article passages verified. Abstract, publication record and legal-personality argument
This is a critical argument about law, not a finding about consciousness. PULSE needs to explain why an entity deserves moral consideration separately from whether recognizing it would make legal responsibility easier to assign.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
From Slaves to Synths? Superintelligence and the Evolution of Legal Personality
Philosophy/conceptual literature
Simon Chesterman. 2026. From Slaves to Synths? Superintelligence and the Evolution of Legal Personality. arXiv · number: 2601.02773v1
Open source · DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.02773
What this source supports: The essay separates practical reasons for recognizing legal persons from reasons based on the entity’s own worth. It also examines hypothetical intelligence far beyond human abilities and the ultimate authority of human institutions.
What was checked: Repository abstract, author and submission record verified. arXiv abstract and submission history
This recent essay offers a critical comparison. It was shared as a preprint and discusses hypothetical possibilities; it does not establish that today’s AI systems are persons.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Consociational Democracy
Governance/institutional scholarship
Rudy B. Andeweg. 2000. Consociational Democracy. Annual Review of Political Science · volume: 3 · page: 509–536
Open source · DOI: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.509
What this source supports: Reviews the origins, expansion and contested interpretation of consociational theory.
What was checked: Publisher abstract and bibliographic metadata verified. Annual Reviews abstract and citation block
Abstract-level verification; not proof that a fixed parity system works universally.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Safeguarding Democracy: Powersharing and Democratic Survival
Evidence measured in existing systems
Benjamin A. T. Graham; Michael K. Miller; Kaare W. Strøm. 2017. Safeguarding Democracy: Powersharing and Democratic Survival. American Political Science Review · volume: 111 · issue: 4 · page: 686–704
Open source · DOI: 10.1017/S0003055417000326
What this source supports: The research summary reports results that depend on context, using data from 1975–2015. It examines power sharing that includes groups in government, spreads authority, or limits the exercise of power.
What was checked: Publisher abstract and bibliographic metadata verified. Cambridge abstract and citation block
These findings compare human societies. Verification covered the research summary. They do not guarantee that power sharing causes a particular outcome everywhere or that the findings apply to synthetic persons.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2026 Results: Navigating Rising Expectations and New Horizons
Evidence measured in existing systems
OECD. 2026. OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions 2026 Results: Navigating Rising Expectations and New Horizons. OECD Publishing
Open source · DOI: 10.1787/9eb63fec-en
What this source supports: The survey summary links trust in government with how people view public decisions and whether they feel heard.
What was checked: Official report metadata and summary findings verified. OECD report citation block and summary findings
This survey finds a relationship among human responses. It does not provide measured settings for synthetic persons. The source archive’s specific 47-point gap associated with feeling heard was not verified here and is not used as a current website claim.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Generative AI and Jobs: A Refined Global Index of Occupational Exposure
Evidence measured in existing systems
Paweł Gmyrek; Janine Berg; Karol Kamiński; Filip Konopczyński; Agnieszka Ładna; Balint Nafradi; Konrad Rosłaniec; Marek Troszyński. 2025. Generative AI and Jobs: A Refined Global Index of Occupational Exposure. International Labour Organization · number: Working Paper 140
Open source · DOI: 10.54394/HETP0387
What this source supports: The International Labour Organization estimates how much different occupations could be affected by AI that generates content. This does not mean those jobs have actually been replaced.
What was checked: Official working-paper abstract, authors and metadata verified. ILO WP 140 publication record, abstract and author/DOI block
The index combines information about job tasks, expert judgments, and AI predictions. Verification covered the official paper record and its accompanying research brief. It did not check every step used to produce the estimates.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Energy and AI
Engineering/technical guidance
International Energy Agency. 2025. Energy and AI. International Energy Agency
What this source supports: The report estimates data centres’ uncertain electricity needs under a main set of assumptions, then checks how those estimates change when assumptions change.
What was checked: Official report chapter and citation metadata verified. Energy demand from AI: base case and sensitivity cases
Verification covered the Energy demand from AI chapter. Its forecasts describe possible situations. They do not measure future demand or establish what resources synthetic persons would need. The citation details opened during this audit showed no publication identifier called a DOI.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
The Living Governance Organism: A Biologically-Inspired Constitutional Framework for Artificial Consciousness Governance
Related current proposal
Lauren de Mestre. 2026. The Living Governance Organism: A Biologically-Inspired Constitutional Framework for Artificial Consciousness Governance.
Open source · DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.6289458
What this source supports: The paper proposes seven connected layers of government, inspired by biological systems. Its choices include classifying consciousness, giving different levels of personhood (being a person with interests and rights that matter in their own right), and rules for ending the governance system itself.
What was checked: The repository record, abstract and searchable passages of the author’s manuscript were checked. The PDF could not be retrieved directly. This was not a full independent review.. SSRN indexed metadata/abstract, repository history, and indexed author-uploaded manuscript passages inspected. Direct PDF retrieval remained inaccessible; not a full independent review.
The author’s claims that governance frameworks are missing and the proposed rules are new were not independently established. A biological comparison does not prove a design works. PULSE does not adopt this proposal’s rules for ending the system.
Accessed 16 September 2026.
Plenary A to Z
Constitutional/legal precedent
Northern Ireland Assembly. n.d.. Plenary A to Z.
What this source supports: The Assembly describes a voting rule requiring 60% of members who vote, including 40% of voting members formally designated Unionist and 40% of voting members formally designated Nationalist. This is its weighted-majority form of support across communities.
What was checked: Official Assembly procedural explanation verified. Cross-Community Support: Parallel Consent and Weighted Majority
This offers a comparison for requiring support across groups. It differs from PULSE’s rule of 55% of the full Senate and 40% within each delegation. The totals used to calculate percentages, the groups represented, and the surrounding institutions differ. This audit does not infer a publication date or DOI identifier for the page.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Heterogeneity and Persistence in Returns to Wealth
Evidence measured in existing systems
Andreas Fagereng; Luigi Guiso; Davide Malacrino; Luigi Pistaferri. 2016. Heterogeneity and Persistence in Returns to Wealth. National Bureau of Economic Research · number: 22822
Open source · DOI: 10.3386/w22822
What this source supports: Using Norwegian administrative records, the working paper reports that returns on wealth differ between people and that these differences persist over time. It is an earlier version of the 2020 Econometrica article.
What was checked: NBER indexed metadata and abstract verified; direct record access restricted. NBER Working Paper 22822: issue date, abstract and published-version link
The working paper’s research summary, as indexed by search, describes twenty years of data. The final 2020 article describes twelve. Keep each version’s data period, publication year, and DOI publication identifier separate. Findings about humans do not determine how an economy involving synthetic persons would work.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Institutional Designs for Diverse Democracies: Consociationalism, Centripetalism and Communalism Compared
Governance/institutional scholarship
Benjamin Reilly. 2012. Institutional Designs for Diverse Democracies: Consociationalism, Centripetalism and Communalism Compared. European Political Science · volume: 11 · issue: 2 · page: 259–270
Open source · DOI: 10.1057/eps.2011.36
What this source supports: This is a comparison of ways to organize government in divided societies. The author argues that the approaches overlap more than people often assume.
What was checked: Primary publisher metadata and bounded claim support checked. Publisher abstract/summary, publication record and cited passages
The issue is dated 1 June 2012; the article first appeared online on 29 July 2011. This audit checked the publisher’s summary and publication details, not the full article. It is separate from Reilly’s 2001 book and does not establish that PULSE’s complete election rules work.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
A new monotonic, clone-independent, reversal symmetric, and Condorcet-consistent single-winner election method
Governance/institutional scholarship
Markus Schulze. 2011. A new monotonic, clone-independent, reversal symmetric, and Condorcet-consistent single-winner election method. Social Choice and Welfare · volume: 36 · issue: 2 · page: 267–303
Open source · DOI: 10.1007/s00355-010-0475-4
What this source supports: The publisher’s summary reports mathematical properties of this voting method: raising a candidate in a ranking cannot hurt that candidate; adding similar candidates does not manipulate the result in the defined clone setting; and a candidate who beats every rival head to head wins.
What was checked: Primary publisher metadata and bounded claim support checked. Publisher abstract/summary, publication record and cited passages
The issue is dated February 2011; the article first appeared online on 11 July 2010. This audit checked publication details and the summary, not the full mathematical proof. Its results do not automatically cover PULSE’s additional candidate requirements, group weights and participation rules. They do not mean voters can never benefit by voting strategically.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
The contact hypothesis re-evaluated
Evidence measured in existing systems
Elizabeth Levy Paluck; Seth A. Green; Donald P. Green. 2019. The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behavioural Public Policy · volume: 3 · issue: 2 · page: 129–158
Open source · DOI: 10.1017/bpp.2018.25
What this source supports: The review examines 27 studies that assigned people to contact conditions at random and measured results later. It finds support for contact reducing prejudice, but effects vary and the findings have limits as a guide to public policy.
What was checked: Primary publisher metadata and bounded claim support checked. Publisher abstract/summary, publication record and cited passages
The issue is dated November 2019; the article first appeared online on 10 July 2018. This audit checked the research summary, how studies were selected, and publication details. It concerns human groups. It neither measures future relationships between humans and synthetic persons nor rules out every benefit of contact.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Evidence measured in existing systems
Michelle Vaccaro; Abdullah Almaatouq; Thomas Malone. 2024. When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour · volume: 8 · page: 2293–2303
Open source · DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1
What this source supports: Across 106 experiments, people using AI did better on average than people alone, but worse than whichever performed better alone: people or AI. Results varied with the task and with their relative abilities.
What was checked: Primary publisher metadata and bounded claim support checked. Publisher abstract/summary, publication record and cited passages
Published 28 October 2024. This audit checked the research summary, results and limitations. The studies concern AI tools, not conscious synthetic citizens. For content creation, the estimated benefit over the better solo performer was not statistically distinguishable from no benefit, although the difference from decision tasks was statistically significant. The review excluded tasks neither partner could do alone.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Exploratory Modeling for Policy Analysis
Governance/institutional scholarship
Steve Bankes. 1993. Exploratory Modeling for Policy Analysis. Operations Research · volume: 41 · issue: 3 · page: 435–449
Open source · DOI: 10.1287/opre.41.3.435
What this source supports: Bankes distinguishes using computer experiments to explore uncertain possibilities from using a model to predict what a system will do.
What was checked: Primary publisher metadata and bounded claim support checked. Publisher abstract/summary, publication record and cited passages
The publisher’s author, summary, DOI and 41(3):435–449 publication details were checked. This supplies a research approach to compare with PULSE. It does not verify PULSE’s model or its results against real-world evidence. This audit did not review the full article.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-Term Policy Analysis
Governance/institutional scholarship
Robert J. Lempert; Steven W. Popper; Steven C. Bankes. 2003. Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-Term Policy Analysis. RAND Corporation · number: MR-1626-RPC
Open source · DOI: 10.7249/MR1626
What this source supports: The report describes testing strategies that can adapt across many possible futures when major facts remain uncertain, rather than relying on one long-term prediction.
What was checked: Primary publisher metadata and bounded claim support checked. Publisher abstract/summary, publication record and cited passages
This audit checked RAND’s summary, three authors, 2003 publication year, MR-1626-RPC report number and DOI. It did not review the full 210-page report. Citing this approach does not establish that PULSE meets all its requirements.
Accessed 14 September 2026.
Sharing the World with Digital Minds
Philosophy/conceptual literature
Carl Shulman; Nick Bostrom. 2021. Sharing the World with Digital Minds. Rethinking Moral Status · page: 306–326
Open source · DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192894076.003.0018
What this source supports: Large numbers of digital minds, or large differences in what they could gain from resources, could create difficult questions about sharing those resources. The authors argue that we should think about the ethics and rules in advance.
What was checked: The publication details and summary were checked on the publisher’s site. The full published chapter was not accessible for this check.. Publisher chapter metadata and abstract
This is an argument about ideas. It does not test PULSE or endorse its particular equal-personhood rules.
Accessed 15 September 2026.
Propositions Concerning Digital Minds and Society
Philosophy/conceptual literature
Nick Bostrom; Carl Shulman. 2023. Propositions Concerning Digital Minds and Society. Author-hosted manuscript
What this source supports: These tentative proposals discuss how to treat digital minds, copying and consent, and political problems that fast copying could create.
What was checked: The title information and relevant passages in the author’s version 1.21 were checked. This was not a review of every proposal in the paper.. PDF pp. 1–7, especially moral treatment and security/stability
The copy consulted says a journal publication was forthcoming in 2025. A final journal publication was not verified. PULSE does not adopt all the restrictions proposed in this work.
Accessed 15 September 2026.
AI Rights for Human Safety
Governance/institutional scholarship
Peter N. Salib; Simon Goldstein. 2026. AI Rights for Human Safety. Virginia Law Review · volume: 112 · issue: 4 · page: 1061–1152
What this source supports: Their argument examines whether rights involving agreements, ownership and compensation for harm could give humans and AI reasons to keep cooperating.
What was checked: The final journal details, introduction, relevant argument passages and PDF page numbers were checked. The mathematical model was not independently assessed in full.. Journal introduction; final PDF pp. 1061–1069, 1147–1152
Their safety argument does not depend on AI being conscious or having voting rights. It does not show that rights guarantee peace or that PULSE would work.
Accessed 15 September 2026.
Artificial Persons
Philosophical and conceptual arguments
Ned Howells-Whitaker; Seth Lazar. 2026. Artificial Persons.
Open source · DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2607.08695
What this source supports: The authors argue that an ability to understand fair terms of cooperation and form a view of what makes life worthwhile could justify political personhood, even without conscious experience. They draw on John Rawls’s political philosophy. They do not say current AI has both abilities.
What was checked: The primary repository’s publication details, abstract and relevant arguments were checked. This was not an independent assessment of every argument.. Primary repository metadata, abstract and relevant full-text arguments inspected; not an independent assessment of every argument.
This is a philosophical argument, not a consciousness test or proof that PULSE works. It does not argue that current AI should automatically receive voting rights.
Accessed 16 September 2026.
Digital minds governance: early scoping from expert interviews
Research on government and institutions
Lucius Caviola; Austin Smith. 2026. Digital minds governance: early scoping from expert interviews. Outpaced
What this source supports: The authors summarize interviews with 29 selected experts. Topics include laws passed too early, policies that become hard to change, tensions between safety and welfare, and missing fields of expertise.
What was checked: The authors’ publication, date, full report and limits of the interview method were checked. No journal publication or DOI was verified.. Author publication, displayed date, full report and methodology caveats inspected. No DOI or journal publication verified.
This was not a representative survey with standard questions. Interviewees came mostly from US and UK AI-safety work. Questions varied, and percentages refer only to those asked. Taking part did not mean endorsing the report’s proposals or PULSE.
Accessed 16 September 2026.
Artificial Minds, Human Disagreement: The Political Challenge of AI Consciousness
Research on government and institutions
Adam Bales; Iason Gabriel. 2026. Artificial Minds, Human Disagreement: The Political Challenge of AI Consciousness.
Open source · DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.6937498
What this source supports: The authors argue that people may continue to disagree about AI consciousness. Society therefore needs public discussion, workable shared policies and compromise, with mutual respect despite disagreement.
What was checked: The authors and institutional abstract were checked, alongside repository details and searchable passages from section 5. The full documents could not be retrieved directly from SSRN or PhilArchive. No final journal publication was verified.. Official institutional abstract and author names verified; SSRN metadata and revised-manuscript section 5 inspected through indexed primary text. Direct SSRN/PhilArchive retrieval failed. No final journal publication verified.
This is an argument about politics and values. It does not prove that discussion will produce agreement or that any current AI is conscious.
Accessed 16 September 2026.
Internal primary sources
PULSE’s own source material
Constitutional explanations cite the v1.2.2 Charter and schedules. Testing counts cite the current brief and metrics register. The accounting of targeted starting cases cites the archive-origin audit. These are the project’s own sources, not independent outside verification.