Methodology
How the Framework is Built
The AIR-SPJ is not a top-down academic product. It is built iteratively through a transparent pipeline of evidence submission, AI-assisted mapping, practitioner review, and editorial consensus — open to challenge at every step.
The Evidence Pipeline
Every connection between a research source and a framework element passes through five stages.
Evidence Submission
Contributors upload research documents — peer-reviewed studies, practitioner reports, case analyses, or clinical observations. The platform accepts formal citations and anonymized practitioner experience equally.
AI-Assisted Mapping
GPT-4o-mini reads the submitted document and suggests which of the 87 framework elements it may support, including specific citations and confidence ratings. This is a starting point, not a verdict.
Contributor Review
The submitting contributor reviews each AI suggestion — accepting, declining, flagging, or leaving connections pending. They can add their own notes and context to each proposed link.
Author Editorial Review
The three core authors independently review accepted connections. Each author votes: approve, approve with revisions, or reject. Formal acceptance requires consensus or majority agreement.
Published Connection
Approved connections are published to the public Evidence Library with the source citation, specific excerpt, element link, and the reasoning behind the decision — fully transparent and citable.
Core Development Principles
These principles govern every decision about what enters the framework and how.
Transparency by design
Every connection between evidence and a framework element is publicly visible with the citation, excerpt, AI reasoning, contributor notes, and author decision. Nothing is hidden.
Practitioner-informed
Anonymized clinical observations carry the same submission pathway as peer-reviewed research. Both inform the framework. Practitioners contribute by credential, never by name.
Conservative validation
An element is not considered supported until multiple independent sources converge. AI suggestions are explicitly labeled as starting points. No single study determines an element status.
Version-controlled evolution
The framework is versioned. As new evidence accumulates, elements can be refined, split, merged, or deprecated. The history of each element is preserved and traceable.
Not a scoring tool
The AIR-SPJ is a structured professional judgment framework — it organizes and weights evidence but does not produce risk scores. The practitioner clinical judgment remains central.
Open to challenge
Approved connections can be flagged for re-review by any contributor. The framework explicitly invites critique, counter-evidence, and boundary testing as part of maturation.
Editorial Structure
Three core authors hold final editorial authority. Contributors provide the evidence; authors determine what the framework accepts.
Jameson Ritter
Lead Author & Platform Architect
Framework design, AI-human interaction risk, BTAM integration
Totti Karpela
Co-Author
Practitioner validation, clinical application, field review
Steven Crimando
Co-Author
Behavioral threat assessment, trauma-informed practice, editorial oversight
Consensus Model
For each submitted connection, all three authors independently review and vote. A connection is formally approved on majority agreement (2 of 3) with the dissenting view recorded. Unanimous approval is noted where it occurs. No author can unilaterally approve or reject — the process is inherently deliberative.
Who Can Contribute
The platform supports three contributor types with different access levels.
Submit peer-reviewed or grey literature for AI-assisted element mapping. Ideal for academics, graduate students, or policy analysts with relevant source material.
Share anonymized clinical observations and professional experience. Submitted by credential only — no identifying information. Connects practitioner knowledge to framework elements.
The three core authors hold final editorial authority. They review submitted connections, approve or reject with rationale, and maintain the formal framework version.
Help build the framework
The AIR-SPJ framework improves with more evidence and more perspectives. If you have relevant research, clinical experience, or practitioner knowledge, apply to become a contributor.