Technical Expertise and Cognitive Capacity Assessment: The Scientific Self-Defense of Gifted Individuals as a Procedural Guarantee

This research addresses cognitive expert assessment in the legal field, exploring the interface between law, psychology and neuroscience to improve justice and social inclusion. It is contextualized in light of the growing demand for accurate cognitive expertise that respects human rights and cognitive diversity, highlighting the complexity and limitations of current expert procedures. The problem centers on the lack of standardized protocols and insufficient professional training, factors that compromise the effectiveness of assessments and the protection of fundamental rights. The main objective was to analyze and propose a robust theoretical-methodological model to guide cognitive expert assessments, ensuring fairness, accuracy and inclusion. The neoperspectivist Giftedian paradigm was adopted, which emphasizes the coexistence of absolute and relative truth, epistemological humility and the promotion of justice; interdisciplinary theories of law, psychology and neuroscience; the hypothetical-deductive method in its stages of hypothesis formulation and testing; and a rigorous narrative bibliographic and documentary review, with consultation of databases such as Scopus, Web of Science and SciELO, using specific descriptors, resulting in the analysis of 45 selected high-impact works. The main findings indicate the relevance of interdisciplinarity and normative updating to improve expert assessments, in addition to identifying gaps in standardization and training. The conclusions emphasize the effectiveness of the proposed model, the need for public policies and specific protocols, and highlight limitations related to the operationalization of the paradigm and the scarcity of standardized data. The contributions cover theoretical, methodological and practical advances, with added value to science, justice and social inclusion.