Cognitive Dignity by Design: Governance Architecture for Valid Neuro-Monitoring Data and Explainable Preventive Decision Support in Industry 5.0 Author’s DetailsProf. Dr. Julio Cesar Ramirez Vargas, Instituto Cientifico Neuro-Integral (ICN), Bogota, Colombia Prof. Dr. S. Sandhya, NITTE - School of Management, India Col. Prof. Dr. J Satpathy, PPISR - PIM, India Isaidys Adriana Abanto, Instituto Cientifico Neuro-Integral (ICN), Bogota, Colombia Abstract Workplace neuro-technology and AI-enabled analytics can strengthen prevention by detecting transient cognitive readiness risk states. However, when neuro-monitoring is experienced as punitive surveillance, workers may conceal symptoms, alter behavior, or disengage; corrupting the very data the system depends on. Ethical governance is therefore a technical prerequisite for data validity. Objective of the paper is to propose 'cognitive dignity' as a practical design requirement for workplace neuro-technology and to translate it into implementable governance controls, including privacy-preserving dashboards, explainability, and non-punitive action protocols. Methodology includes integrating (i) neuro - rights and mental privacy principles, (ii) emerging international neuro-technology governance guidance, (iii) occupational psychosocial risk management standards, and (iv) operational design elements from tri-phasic readiness screening (baseline–demand–recovery) that outputs traffic-light readiness states (green/amber/red). Approach derives minimum technical and organizational controls intended to be auditable and scalable. Scope includes recognition of brain-state variability and limits, where measurement is used for protection and recovery rather than punishment. We propose a Three-view Governance model: (1) Individual view (2) Team view—aggregated/anonymous for workload balancing, and (3) Organization view—aggregated/anonymous for system redesign. We specify a minimum explainability standard (3 factors, 2 recommended actions, 1 state), a non-punitive decision loop (Protect–Recover–Reevaluate), and auditability controls (role-based access, logging, retention limits, worker participation, and redress). We further clarify alignment with the EU AI Act prohibition on workplace emotion recognition by distinguishing physiological readiness markers (e.g., load/fatigue) from emotion inference. Results indicate that cognitive dignity is not only an ethical stance; it is a technical requirement for trustworthy data, adoption, and effective prevention. Embedding dignity into governance, explainability, and action protocols can convert neuro-technology from surveillance into preventive care compatible with Industry 5.0 goals. Keywords: Neuro-Ethics; Neuro-Rights; Psychosocial Safety; Industry 5.0 and Cognitive Readiness Introduction
Prof. Dr. Julio Cesar Ramirez Vargas (Sat,) studied this question.