Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AI safety and governance increasingly demand that systems' normative judgments be transparent, testable, and auditable, yet deployed alignment overwhelmingly reduces moral evaluation to a scalar---a reward score, a safety probability, a guardrail pass/fail---which both discards moral structure and silently pre-commits to a single ethical framework while appearing neutral. We present , a structure-preserving compiler that parses natural-language scenarios into a typed, canonically-hashed intermediate representation and runs a plurality of framework analyses over it (consequentialist, Kantian with an SMT-checked universalizability gate, virtue, care), refusing to aggregate when frameworks disagree; and (Democratically-Governed Ethics Modules), an evaluation engine mapping situations to a canonical nine-dimensional moral vector and per-stakeholder tensor, with constitutional modules that hold hard veto. We frame the methodology as : converting normative claims into explicit models with declared invariance assumptions, extracting measurable predictions, and testing them. We report reliability , a measured safety property (robustness to meaning-preserving manipulation, surfaced as invariance violations), and pluralist governance (a worst-off/escalate policy that routes genuine disagreement to human review). Both systems are open and installable. Target venue: AAAI/AIES. Author preprint deposited for archival and citation. Draft — pending author review.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andrew Bond (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: