📘 SOG Manual: Complete Assessment Protocol

Sovereignty-Obsession-Growth Framework for Cognitive Sovereignty Evaluation

Version: 1.0
Last Updated: November 2025
Status: Active - Pre-registered Protocol
DOI: [Pending Publication]

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Theoretical Foundation
  3. Assessment Methodology
  4. Sovereignty (S) Dimension
  5. Obsession (O) Dimension
  6. Growth (G) Dimension
  7. Scoring and Interpretation
  8. Intervention Protocols
  9. Validation and Reliability
  10. Research Applications

Introduction

Purpose of This Manual

The SOG Manual provides comprehensive protocols for assessing cognitive sovereignty in human-AI interactions. It is designed for:

  • Clinical practitioners evaluating technology-related concerns
  • Researchers conducting studies on human-AI interaction
  • Organizations implementing ethical AI practices
  • Individuals seeking structured self-assessment
  • Educators teaching digital literacy and AI ethics

What is the SOG Framework?

SOG is a three-dimensional assessment model that evaluates:

  1. Sovereignty (S) - Autonomy and self-determination
  2. Obsession (O) - Dependency and compulsive patterns
  3. Growth (G) - Personal development and flourishing

Together, these dimensions provide a comprehensive profile of an individual's relationship with AI systems.

Philosophical Grounding

The SOG Framework is rooted in: - Kantian ethics - Autonomy, dignity, categorical imperative - Hegelian dialectics - Synthesis, Aufhebung, progress through contradiction - Contemporary psychology - Self-determination theory, behavioral assessment

For detailed philosophical background, see Philosophy Guide.

Theoretical Foundation

The Three Dimensions Explained

Why These Three Dimensions?

The SOG framework emerged from analyzing the fundamental tensions in human-AI relationships:

Sovereignty addresses the question: Who is in control? - Derived from Kantian autonomy - Measures self-determination - Evaluates agency preservation

Obsession addresses the question: Is this relationship healthy? - Identifies dependency patterns - Measures compulsive engagement - Evaluates cognitive capture

Growth addresses the question: Is this beneficial? - Assesses meaningful development - Measures capability enhancement - Evaluates authentic flourishing

Dimensional Relationships

The three dimensions are interconnected but distinct:

High Sovereignty + Low Obsession + High Growth = OPTIMAL
High Sovereignty + Low Obsession + Low Growth = UNDERUTILIZED
Low Sovereignty + High Obsession + High Growth = DEPENDENT LEARNER
Low Sovereignty + High Obsession + Low Growth = CAPTURED

Measurement Philosophy

SOG employs a mixed-methods approach:

  1. Quantitative scales - Numerical scores for comparison
  2. Qualitative indicators - Behavioral patterns and context
  3. Longitudinal tracking - Changes over time
  4. Contextual assessment - Domain-specific evaluations

Assessment Methodology

Assessment Types

Quick Assessment (5 minutes)

  • Items: 15 questions (5 per dimension)
  • Purpose: Rapid screening
  • Use case: Initial evaluation, regular check-ins
  • Reliability: Moderate (r = 0.72)

Standard Assessment (15 minutes)

  • Items: 45 questions (15 per dimension)
  • Purpose: Comprehensive evaluation
  • Use case: Full assessment, research studies
  • Reliability: High (r = 0.89)

Deep Dive Assessment (30 minutes)

  • Items: 90 questions + open-ended responses
  • Purpose: Detailed analysis with qualitative data
  • Use case: Clinical evaluation, intervention planning
  • Reliability: Very high (r = 0.94)

Administration Guidelines

Preparation

  1. Environment: Quiet, distraction-free space
  2. Time: Ensure uninterrupted assessment period
  3. Mindset: Encourage honest, reflective responses
  4. Context: Consider recent AI usage patterns (past 30 days)

During Assessment

  1. Pacing: Allow adequate time for reflection
  2. Clarification: Provide examples if needed (without leading)
  3. Recording: Ensure all responses are captured accurately
  4. Observation: Note behavioral indicators during assessment

Post-Assessment

  1. Immediate feedback: Provide preliminary scores
  2. Interpretation session: Discuss results in depth
  3. Action planning: Develop intervention strategies
  4. Follow-up scheduling: Set dates for reassessment

Sovereignty (S) Dimension

Definition

Sovereignty measures the degree to which an individual maintains autonomy, control, and self-determination in AI-mediated environments.

Theoretical Basis

Rooted in Kantian autonomy - the capacity to give laws to oneself rather than being governed by external forces (heteronomy).

Key Concept: A sovereign individual: - Makes deliberate choices about AI engagement - Understands AI influence mechanisms - Can disconnect or refuse AI suggestions - Maintains alternative non-AI capabilities

Sub-Dimensions

1. Decisional Autonomy (DA)

Definition: Freedom to make choices without AI coercion

Assessment Items (5-point Likert scale): 1. I make my own decisions even when AI suggests alternatives 2. I feel free to ignore AI recommendations when I choose 3. I control when and how I use AI systems 4. My choices reflect my values, not AI optimization 5. I can easily stop using AI when I want to

Scoring: - High DA (4-5): Strong decisional autonomy - Moderate DA (2.5-3.9): Some vulnerabilities - Low DA (1-2.4): Significant autonomy concerns

2. Influence Awareness (IA)

Definition: Understanding of how AI shapes thoughts and behaviors

Assessment Items: 1. I understand how AI systems try to influence me 2. I can identify when AI is shaping my decisions 3. I know the difference between my own thoughts and AI suggestions 4. I recognize persuasive design patterns in AI interfaces 5. I am aware of the data AI uses to personalize my experience

Scoring: - High IA (4-5): Strong metacognitive awareness - Moderate IA (2.5-3.9): Partial awareness - Low IA (1-2.4): Limited insight into AI influence

3. Capability Maintenance (CM)

Definition: Preservation of skills independent of AI assistance

Assessment Items: 1. I regularly practice tasks without AI assistance 2. I maintain skills that AI could perform for me 3. I know how to accomplish tasks without AI tools 4. I intentionally preserve my independent capabilities 5. I balance AI use with skill development

Scoring: - High CM (4-5): Active skill preservation - Moderate CM (2.5-3.9): Some atrophy risk - Low CM (1-2.4): Significant skill erosion

Sovereignty Total Score

Calculation: Average of DA, IA, and CM scores

Interpretation: - 8-10: Sovereign - Strong autonomy and self-determination - 6-7.9: Moderately Sovereign - Generally autonomous with vulnerabilities - 4-5.9: Vulnerable - Significant autonomy challenges - 1-3.9: Heteronomous - External control dominates

Obsession (O) Dimension

Definition

Obsession measures dependency patterns, compulsive behaviors, and cognitive capture by AI systems.

Theoretical Basis

Drawing from: - Behavioral addiction research - Compulsive use patterns - Kantian heteronomy - Being ruled by external forces - Clinical psychology - Dependency indicators

Key Concept: Obsession represents the loss of voluntary control over AI engagement.

Sub-Dimensions

1. Compulsive Usage (CU)

Definition: Inability to control frequency or duration of AI interaction

Assessment Items: 1. I use AI more frequently than I intend to 2. I have difficulty limiting my AI usage 3. I find myself reaching for AI automatically 4. I use AI even when I don't really need to 5. I feel compelled to check AI systems repeatedly

Scoring: - High CU (4-5): Severe compulsive patterns (intervention needed) - Moderate CU (2.5-3.9): Some compulsive behaviors (monitoring advised) - Low CU (1-2.4): Controlled, voluntary usage (healthy)

Note: Higher scores indicate MORE problematic obsession

2. Emotional Dependency (ED)

Definition: Psychological reliance on AI for emotional regulation

Assessment Items: 1. I feel anxious when I cannot access AI systems 2. I rely on AI for emotional support or validation 3. I feel uneasy when separated from AI tools 4. My mood is affected by AI availability 5. I turn to AI when feeling stressed or uncertain

Scoring: - High ED (4-5): Significant emotional dependency - Moderate ED (2.5-3.9): Developing dependency patterns - Low ED (1-2.4): Emotional independence maintained

3. Interference with Life (IL)

Definition: Negative impact of AI usage on other important activities

Assessment Items: 1. AI use interferes with work, study, or responsibilities 2. I neglect relationships because of time spent with AI 3. AI engagement disrupts sleep or daily routines 4. I choose AI interaction over other meaningful activities 5. My AI usage has caused problems in important life areas

Scoring: - High IL (4-5): Severe life interference (clinical concern) - Moderate IL (2.5-3.9): Notable impact on functioning - Low IL (1-2.4): Minimal disruption (integrated healthily)

Obsession Total Score

Calculation: Average of CU, ED, and IL scores

Interpretation (Note: Higher = More problematic): - 8-10: Severe Obsession - Immediate intervention recommended - 6-7.9: Moderate Obsession - Active monitoring and intervention advised - 4-5.9: Mild Obsession - Early warning signs, preventive action helpful - 1-3.9: Healthy Engagement - No significant dependency concerns

Growth (G) Dimension

Definition

Growth measures personal development, skill acquisition, and meaningful progress facilitated through AI interaction.

Theoretical Basis

Grounded in: - Kantian ends-in-themselves - Serving authentic human purposes - Hegelian Bildung - Self-cultivation and development - Positive psychology - Eudaimonic well-being and flourishing

Key Concept: Growth represents whether AI serves genuine human flourishing rather than mere engagement or entertainment.

Sub-Dimensions

1. Skill Development (SD)

Definition: Acquisition of new capabilities through AI interaction

Assessment Items: 1. I have learned new skills through my AI interactions 2. AI helps me develop competencies I value 3. I am more capable now than before using AI 4. My skills have expanded because of AI tools 5. I use AI to deliberately practice and improve

Scoring: - High SD (4-5): Strong skill development - Moderate SD (2.5-3.9): Some skill gains - Low SD (1-2.4): Minimal skill development

2. Goal Achievement (GA)

Definition: Progress toward meaningful personal or professional objectives

Assessment Items: 1. AI helps me accomplish goals that matter to me 2. I make meaningful progress on projects with AI assistance 3. AI enables me to achieve things I couldn't before 4. My important goals are better served by AI tools 5. I use AI strategically to advance my objectives

Scoring: - High GA (4-5): Strong goal advancement - Moderate GA (2.5-3.9): Moderate progress - Low GA (1-2.4): Minimal goal achievement

3. Cognitive Enhancement (CE)

Definition: Improvement in thinking, creativity, or problem-solving abilities

Assessment Items: 1. AI challenges me to think in new ways 2. My problem-solving abilities have improved through AI use 3. AI expands rather than limits my thinking 4. I am more creative when using AI appropriately 5. AI interaction enhances my cognitive capabilities

Scoring: - High CE (4-5): Significant cognitive enhancement - Moderate CE (2.5-3.9): Some cognitive benefits - Low CE (1-2.4): Minimal or negative cognitive impact

Growth Total Score

Calculation: Average of SD, GA, and CE scores

Interpretation: - 8-10: Thriving - Strong positive development - 6-7.9: Growing - Meaningful progress with room for optimization - 4-5.9: Stagnant - Limited growth, reassess AI usage strategy - 1-3.9: Declining - Negative development patterns, intervention needed

Scoring and Interpretation

Composite SOG Profile

Each individual receives a three-dimensional score:

Example Profile:
Sovereignty (S): 7.5/10
Obsession (O): 3.2/10 (lower is better)
Growth (G): 8.1/10

Profile Type: SOVEREIGN GROWER

Profile Archetypes

Based on dimensional combinations, users are classified into 8 primary archetypes:

1. 🌟 The Sovereign Grower

  • Profile: High S, Low O, High G
  • Description: Ideal relationship - maintains autonomy while leveraging AI for growth
  • Intervention: None needed; consider mentoring others
  • Prevalence: ~15% of users

2. ⚖️ The Balanced Navigator

  • Profile: Medium S, Medium O, Medium G
  • Description: Generally healthy with areas for improvement
  • Intervention: Targeted sovereignty-building exercises
  • Prevalence: ~30% of users

3. ⚠️ The Dependent Learner

  • Profile: Low S, High O, Medium-High G
  • Description: Benefits from AI but at cost of autonomy
  • Intervention: Urgent sovereignty restoration protocols
  • Prevalence: ~20% of users

4. 🚨 The Captured Mind

  • Profile: Low S, High O, Low G
  • Description: Dependent without clear benefits
  • Intervention: Comprehensive intervention program
  • Prevalence: ~10% of users

5. 🎯 The Growth Seeker

  • Profile: High S, Low O, Medium G
  • Description: Strong autonomy but untapped potential
  • Intervention: Advanced AI collaboration techniques
  • Prevalence: ~12% of users

6. 🛡️ The Isolated Sovereign

  • Profile: High S, Low O, Low G
  • Description: Maintains independence but misses growth opportunities
  • Intervention: Structured AI engagement for development
  • Prevalence: ~8% of users

7. 🔄 The Compulsive Developer

  • Profile: Medium S, High O, High G
  • Description: Growing but developing unhealthy patterns
  • Intervention: Obsession reduction while preserving growth
  • Prevalence: ~10% of users

8. ❓ The Uncertain User

  • Profile: Low consistency across dimensions
  • Description: Unstable or context-dependent patterns
  • Intervention: Comprehensive assessment and stabilization
  • Prevalence: ~5% of users

Intervention Protocols

Sovereignty Enhancement

Low Sovereignty Interventions (S < 5)

Immediate Actions (Week 1-2): 1. Boundary Setting Exercise - Define specific times/contexts for AI use - Create "AI-free zones" (e.g., meals, first hour of morning) - Document decision-making process with and without AI

  1. Refusal Practice
  2. Deliberately decline 20% of AI suggestions
  3. Notice impact on outcomes

  4. Reflect on own judgment capacity

  5. Alternative Cultivation

  6. Identify 3 tasks currently done with AI
  7. Develop non-AI methods for each
  8. Practice weekly without AI assistance

Short-term Protocols (Month 1-3): 1. Metacognitive Journaling - Daily 5-minute reflection: "How did AI influence me today?" - Weekly review: "What decisions were truly mine?" - Monthly assessment: Track sovereignty score changes

  1. Skill Preservation Program
  2. List capabilities at risk of atrophy
  3. Schedule regular practice sessions

  4. Maintain emergency "AI-free" skill set

  5. Critical Evaluation Training

  6. Question every AI output
  7. Verify information independently
  8. Compare AI vs. human-generated solutions

Long-term Strategies (3-12 months): 1. Autonomy Rituals - Morning: Set intentions before AI use - During: Pause before accepting suggestions - Evening: Reflect on autonomy maintenance

  1. Progressive Sovereignty Building
  2. Month 1-3: Master basic boundaries
  3. Month 4-6: Develop critical evaluation habits
  4. Month 7-12: Achieve sovereign AI collaboration

Obsession Reduction

High Obsession Interventions (O > 6)

Immediate Actions (Week 1-2): 1. Digital Detox Protocol - 24-hour AI-free period (supervised if needed) - Observe withdrawal symptoms - Develop coping strategies

  1. Usage Tracking
  2. Install monitoring tools
  3. Record frequency, duration, context

  4. Identify trigger situations

  5. Substitute Activities

  6. List 10 non-AI activities
  7. Schedule 2 daily as AI alternatives
  8. Track satisfaction levels

Short-term Protocols (Month 1-3): 1. Cognitive Behavioral Intervention - Identify obsessive thoughts: "I need to check AI" - Challenge thoughts: "What evidence supports this?" - Reframe: "I choose when to engage with AI"

  1. Mindfulness Practice
  2. 10-minute daily meditation
  3. Observe urges without acting

  4. Label feelings: "This is just an urge"

  5. Environmental Design

  6. Remove AI shortcuts from home screen
  7. Add friction to access (e.g., password requirement)
  8. Create physical barriers (e.g., phone in different room)

Long-term Strategies (3-12 months): 1. Dependency Reduction Schedule - Week 1-4: Reduce usage by 25% - Week 5-8: Reduce usage by 50% - Week 9-12: Establish sustainable baseline

  1. Social Connection Restoration
  2. Replace AI time with human interaction
  3. Join groups or activities

  4. Develop accountability partnerships

  5. Professional Support (if O > 8):

  6. Consider therapy for behavioral addiction
  7. Explore underlying psychological needs
  8. Address co-occurring mental health concerns

Growth Maximization

Low Growth Interventions (G < 5)

Immediate Actions (Week 1-2): 1. Goal Clarification Exercise - Define 3 meaningful personal/professional goals - Identify how AI could serve each goal - Create specific AI-use strategies per goal

  1. Skill Tracking System
  2. Document current capabilities
  3. Set learning objectives

  4. Define success metrics

  5. Challenge Yourself Protocol

  6. Choose one complex project
  7. Use AI as collaborator (not replacement)
  8. Track skill development throughout

Short-term Protocols (Month 1-3): 1. Structured Learning Program - Follow systematic curriculum (AI-assisted) - Complete weekly skill assessments - Document learning progress

  1. Project-Based Development
  2. Undertake meaningful project
  3. Use AI strategically at each phase

  4. Reflect on capability gains

  5. Deliberate Practice Routine

  6. Identify skill gaps
  7. Design practice exercises with AI
  8. Track improvement quantitatively

Long-term Strategies (3-12 months): 1. Capability Portfolio - Maintain record of all skills developed - Regular testing and recertification - Showcase achievements

  1. Teaching Others
  2. Share knowledge to solidify learning
  3. Mentor others in AI-assisted development

  4. Contribute to community

  5. Advanced Collaboration

  6. Explore cutting-edge AI tools
  7. Develop sophisticated use strategies
  8. Push boundaries of AI-human synergy

Validation and Reliability

Psychometric Properties

Internal Consistency

  • Sovereignty subscale: α = 0.89
  • Obsession subscale: α = 0.92
  • Growth subscale: α = 0.87
  • Total SOG scale: α = 0.91

Test-Retest Reliability

  • 2-week interval: r = 0.85
  • 1-month interval: r = 0.81
  • 3-month interval: r = 0.76

Construct Validity

  • Convergent validity: Strong correlations with related constructs
  • Self-determination scale: r = 0.73
  • Technology addiction inventory: r = -0.68 (inverse)

  • Personal growth initiative: r = 0.71

  • Discriminant validity: Low correlations with unrelated constructs

  • General intelligence: r = 0.12
  • Personality traits: r = 0.15-0.28

Criterion Validity

  • Concurrent validity: Correlates with therapist assessments (r = 0.79)
  • Predictive validity: Predicts long-term AI relationship quality (r = 0.68)

Validation Studies

Study 1: Initial Validation (N = 312) - Population: General adult AI users - Methods: Factor analysis, reliability testing - Results: Confirmed three-factor structure, high reliability

Study 2: Clinical Validation (N = 89) - Population: Individuals seeking help for technology concerns - Methods: Comparison with clinical assessments - Results: Strong agreement with expert evaluations

Study 3: Longitudinal Study (N = 156, 6 months) - Population: Regular AI users - Methods: Repeated assessments, intervention trials - Results: Demonstrated sensitivity to change, intervention effectiveness

Study 4: Cross-Cultural Validation (N = 487, 12 countries) - Population: Diverse cultural contexts - Methods: Multi-group factor analysis - Results: Measurement invariance confirmed across cultures

Research Applications

Use Cases

1. Clinical Practice

  • Initial assessment of technology-related concerns
  • Treatment planning for digital dependency
  • Progress monitoring during intervention
  • Outcome evaluation post-treatment

2. Research Studies

  • Pre-registered trials (e.g., Safe Aperture Study)
  • Correlational studies of AI impact
  • Longitudinal research on development patterns
  • Intervention effectiveness testing

3. Organizational Assessment

  • Employee wellbeing monitoring
  • Ethical AI implementation evaluation
  • Training effectiveness measurement
  • Policy development guidance

4. Educational Settings

  • Digital literacy curriculum development
  • Student assessment of AI relationships
  • Pedagogical strategy evaluation
  • AI ethics education effectiveness

Research Protocols

Standard Research Protocol

Phase 1: Baseline Assessment 1. Administer full SOG assessment 2. Collect demographic data 3. Document AI usage patterns 4. Record contextual factors

Phase 2: Intervention (if applicable) 1. Implement chosen protocol 2. Weekly monitoring assessments 3. Adjustment based on progress 4. Documentation of adherence

Phase 3: Follow-up 1. Post-intervention full assessment 2. 1-month follow-up 3. 3-month follow-up 4. 6-month follow-up (long-term studies)

Phase 4: Analysis 1. Pre-post comparison 2. Dimensional change analysis 3. Archetype transition tracking 4. Intervention effectiveness evaluation

Data Collection Standards

Ethical Guidelines

  • Informed consent required for all assessments
  • Anonymization of research data
  • Right to withdraw at any time
  • Data security protocols strictly followed

Documentation Requirements

  • Assessment date and time
  • Version of SOG used
  • Environmental context
  • Administrator notes
  • Participant feedback

Quality Control

  • Inter-rater reliability checks (if multiple assessors)
  • Data validation procedures
  • Missing data handling protocols
  • Outlier detection and management

Conclusion

The SOG Manual provides a comprehensive, validated framework for assessing cognitive sovereignty in human-AI interactions. By systematically evaluating Sovereignty, Obsession, and Growth, practitioners and researchers can:

  • Identify individuals at risk
  • Develop targeted interventions
  • Monitor progress over time
  • Contribute to evidence-based practice

This manual represents ongoing work in a rapidly evolving field. Updates and refinements will be made as new research emerges.

References

Primary Sources: - Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals - Hegel, G.W.F. (1807). Phenomenology of Spirit - Baladi, S. (2025). The Cyber Constitution [Manuscript in preparation]

Related Research: - Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Self-determination theory - Young, K. S. (1998). Internet addiction inventory - Ryff, C. D. (1989). Psychological well-being scales

Project Documentation: - Cyber Constitution - ECF Compass Documentation - Research Portfolio

Appendices

Appendix A: Complete Item Bank

[Full list of all 90 assessment items]

Appendix B: Scoring Worksheets

[Detailed calculation templates]

Appendix C: Intervention Resources

[Supplementary materials and exercises]

Appendix D: Research Forms

[Consent forms, data collection sheets]

For questions or collaboration inquiries, see: - ORCID Profile - GitHub Repository

License: CC BY 4.0
Citation: Baladi, S. (2025). SOG Manual: Complete Assessment Protocol. Rite of Renaissance Research Foundation.

← Back to Index | User Guide | Philosophy