CNS–IVC Operational Manual: a guide to studying how narratives organize our relationships
How can we use evidence—rather than guesswork—to study the narratives that shape what a person, group, or institution considers true, important, or possible? The CNS–IVC Operational Manual, Version 0.1, offers an initial pathway for doing so through the Cognosystemic Theory of Human Psychosocial Relational Construction (TCCR), Social Work, and the social sciences.
By Jalin Eliezer Simunovic Menares
What is the CNS–IVC Operational Manual?
In simple terms, it is a pilot research protocol. A protocol is like a scientific recipe: it tells you what information to collect, what questions to ask, how to record decisions, and what to do when the evidence is insufficient.
The manual turns TCCR concepts into a sequence that can be documented. Its main output is not a label or a score in isolation. It is a reconstructable chain of evidence connecting five elements: sources, interpretation, the decision, the mediation carried out, and the effects observed.
If that path cannot be demonstrated, the manual requires researchers to acknowledge that the information is insufficient. In science, saying “we do not know yet” is often more valuable than filling gaps with assumptions.
Two key ideas: CNS and IVC
1. What is a Cognosystemic Narrative System?
A Cognosystemic Narrative System (CNS) is not simply a story, an opinion, or a repeated word. It is an organization of meanings that helps select experiences, explain what happens, decide what counts as evidence, guide purposes, and produce effects in relationships.
Imagine a pair of glasses. Two people can observe the same situation and give it different meanings because their “narrative lenses” select different aspects. A CNS, however, is more complex than one person’s lenses: it also circulates through families, groups, organizations, public policies, and historical contexts.
Selects
Highlights certain experiences, emotions, and events.
Explains
Offers statements, reasons, and criteria for understanding them.
Regulates
Defines what is accepted as evidence and what is dismissed.
Produces effects
Influences decisions, bonds, agreements, conflicts, and inclusion.
To reconstruct a CNS, the manual examines eight elements: experience, perceptions and emotions, context, propositional core, evaluative body, epistemic attitude, narrative purpose, and narrative function. Function can be established only when there are observable relational consequences; imagining an actor’s intention is not enough.
Source:
Simunovic, Jalin (2026). The Functioning Model of the “Cognosystemic Narrative System” (CNS) in the TCCR: Architecture, Dynamics, and Second-Order Regulators. The Journal of Cognosystemics, 1, 112–139. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20416868
2. What are the Internal Validity Criteria?
The Internal Validity Criteria (IVC) are used to assess the internal strength of a cycle of analysis or intervention. They do not simply ask, “Did it work?” They pose three more careful questions:
Inter-level Coherence
Do the problem, hypothesis, actions, and indicators remain meaningfully connected across the micro, meso, exo, and macro levels that actually matter?
Relational Effectiveness
Did the relational patterns sustaining the problem change in a verifiable way?
Relational Justice
Did the process distribute voice, recognition, and influence through justified rules?
The IVC are assessed across four planes: traceability, alignment across levels, relevance of the indicators, and observable effects. The scale ranges from 0 to 4, but it does not work like a school grade and must not be averaged. The result is limited by its weakest link. This is known as the strong minimum, and it prevents an important failure from being hidden behind several favorable results.
Source:
Simunovic, Jalin (2026). Internal Validity Criteria (IVC) in the TCCR: Inter-level Coherence, Relational Effectiveness, and Relational Justice as a Methodological Standard for Professional Intervention. The Journal of Cognosystemics, 1, 188–261. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20752655
Complementary resource
Listen to the English audio commentary on the IVC
If you prefer to learn by listening, the Spotify player below provides access to the English-language audio commentary associated with the Internal Validity Criteria (IVC) and their role within the TCCR. Use it as an accessible introduction; for academic definitions and research applications, always consult the canonical article and the CNS–IVC Operational Manual.
Player not visible? Listen directly on Spotify.
What is the scientific purpose of Version 0.1?
Version 0.1 was created for a Phase 0 methodological pilot. Its purpose is not to prove, once and for all, that the entire TCCR is correct. It seeks something more basic and necessary: to find out whether different researchers can understand and apply the protocol in a sufficiently comparable way.
This first stage should help to:
- stabilize definitions and units of analysis;
- check whether evidence can be traced back to its source;
- identify ambiguous fields or material that is difficult to code;
- compare the independent work of two coders;
- preserve disagreements instead of concealing them;
- prepare a future Version 0.2 based on the pilot findings.
How can a researcher use it?
The manual can be used in studies in Social Work, sociology, social psychology, education, anthropology, communication, and other social sciences and humanities. It can be applied to interviews, documents, observations, institutional records, or collections of sources, provided that the study has a clear question and suitable ethical safeguards.
- Define the case. State the question, define the time period, identify the actors, and specify what falls inside and outside the study.
- Build the corpus. Inventory and version the sources. Every document, interview, or record should retain its provenance and locator.
- Separate data from interpretation. First record the observed excerpt; then record the inference, an alternative explanation, and the degree of support.
- Reconstruct one or more CNS. Look for organized configurations of meaning, not just themes or frequent words. If evidence is missing, record a candidate CNS.
- Map the circulation of meaning. Document which meaning an actor communicates, how another actor receives it, at which level this occurs, and where friction or mediation appears.
- Formulate a hypothesis of change. Specify what is expected to change, through which action, with which actors, by what mechanism, using which indicators, and within what time frame. Also define which result would weaken the hypothesis.
- Record the decision chain. Connect data, meaning, decision, mediation, indicator, effect, and adjustment.
- Apply the IVC. Assess each criterion using explicit evidence and apply the strong minimum without averaging.
- Compare codings. Two people first code independently and then document and adjudicate their disagreements.
- Close the cycle or begin a new one. The final decision may be to retain, adjust, or reject the hypothesis. Null results and adverse effects must also be preserved.
A simple example: school coexistence
Imagine that a school wants to understand a persistent conflict between students and authorities over discipline. A CNS–IVC study could bring together school regulations, interviews, meeting minutes, and observations of everyday situations.
The team should not begin by declaring that “the students are disobedient” or “the authorities are authoritarian.” It would first need to look for evidence. It might find one CNS that understands discipline mainly as obedience and control, and another that understands it as participation, care, and the building of trust.
The team could then study how these meanings circulate among students, teachers, school leaders, families, and educational rules. A hypothesis of change could propose a specific mediation—for example, a stable mechanism for discussing rules—and define which relational transformations would be observable.
Which instruments are included in the package?
Version 0.1 includes nine editable forms. Each has a specific purpose:
| Form | What is it for? |
|---|---|
| F01 | Define the study, case, time period, actors, sources, and ethical safeguards. |
| F02 | Inventory the evidence and preserve the link to each source. |
| F03 | Reconstruct the eight CNS elements and record alternatives or limits. |
| F04 | Build the Meaning Circulation Map across actors and levels. |
| F05 | Formulate a testable and time-bounded hypothesis of change. |
| F06 | Record the Cognosystemic Decision Chain. |
| F07 | Apply the IVC Validation Matrix and locate the limiting evidence. |
| F08 | Preserve discrepancies between coders and document their adjudication. |
| F09 | Close the cycle without erasing null results, adverse effects, or alternative explanations. |
What can this manual do—and what can it not do?
| It can | It cannot yet |
|---|---|
| Organize and compare CNS reconstructions. | Assess or diagnose individuals, families, organizations, or societies. |
| Separate observations, inferences, and alternative explanations. | Present its categories as validated psychometric measurements. |
| Design hypotheses of change and evaluable cycles. | Claim causality based on accounts or internal ratings. |
| Provisionally apply the IVC and the strong minimum. | Predict crises, successful interventions, or social transformation. |
| Study the protocol’s reliability and usefulness. | Replace ethics, external evaluation, or situated professional judgment. |
The CNS–IVC Manual is an uncanonical and unvalidated methodological draft. Its central concepts come from the TCCR, but the segmentation rules, forms, and inter-coder protocol are provisional decisions that must undergo piloting and review.
Ethics, data, and artificial intelligence
Using an open protocol does not remove ethical obligations. Before working with interviews, case files, or sensitive records, the team must review consent, institutional authorization, anonymization, access, data retention, and the rules that apply in its country or institution.
Artificial intelligence can help retrieve excerpts, propose segments, or produce a second exploratory coding. However, an AI output is not evidence about the case and does not determine the final category. The model, version, date, prompt, and corpus used must be recorded, with human oversight maintained throughout.
Read and download the CNS–IVC Operational Manual
You can view the complete PDF below. The current manual is in Spanish. If the viewer does not appear on your device, use the buttons below to open the document or access its scientific record.
Permanent record: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22801475. License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.
How to cite the manual
Main conceptual sources
Frequently asked questions
Does the manual demonstrate that the TCCR has been validated?
No. Version 0.1 prepares an initial methodological phase. Its purpose is to test the protocol’s clarity, traceability, and reliability—not to validate the entire theory through a single study.
Can I use it in a thesis or university research project?
Yes, provided that you explain its pilot status, justify its relevance, meet your institution’s ethical and methodological requirements, and cite the exact version used.
Is it only for Social Work?
No. It was developed with a special interest in Social Work, but it can be explored in sociology, social psychology, education, anthropology, communication, and other fields concerned with narratives, relationships, and psychosocial intervention.
Does a frequent word or one opinion already constitute a CNS?
No. An organized configuration must be reconstructed, including a core, reasons, rules of evidence, a purpose, and—when the source allows—observable relational effects.
Can IVC ratings be averaged?
No. The scale is ordinal and evidential. It uses the strong minimum: the weakest plane limits each criterion, and the weakest criterion limits the assessment of the cycle.
Can artificial intelligence perform all the coding?
No. It can support exploratory tasks, but interpretation, adjudication, and conclusions require human oversight and comparison with independent coding.
No comments:
Post a Comment