Can information acquisition occur beyond recognised sensory routes?
What conditions would exclude ordinary access and make the result independently checkable?
AKASHICPRISM · PRE-ALPHA v0.2 · OMNI v0.5 PROPOSAL
Keep the wonder.
Deepen the question.
From a meaningful experience to an inspectable record. From many possible explanations to a more precise question. A proposed meeting place for PRISM, AkashicPSI and the Big Questions.
Follow an inquiry
01 / A CONNECTED ARCHITECTURE
Different roles.
A shared commitment to inquiry.
AkashicNET contains the knowledge ecosystem. OMNI contributes analytical perspectives; PRISM connects their assessments with governed records. AkashicPSI explores reported anomalous experiences; its connection with PRISM is proposed here. The Big Questions give individual findings a wider context.
NET
The living record
Sources, stable identifiers, relationships and assessment history.
↗OMNIMany analytical perspectives
Examine a question through complementary lenses, preserving their differences.
↗PRISMThe epistemic interface
Distinguish experience, meaning, interpretation, evidence and uncertainty.
↗PSIAn investigation stream
Organise questions about reported anomalous perception and related experiences.
↗BQThe larger questions
Connect bounded findings to unresolved questions and better tests.
↗PRISM is an epistemic interface layer. The proposed twelve OMNI perspectives include past, present and future views of CUT. This page introduces a design; the full proposed engine is not implemented. The v0.2 release scope is documented below.
02 / FROM REPORT TO INVESTIGATION
A remarkable report.
Five careful questions.
Hypothetical example: someone describes an event they say they could not ordinarily have known about. No real participant or study is represented below.
- 01
Record the experience
What was reported? When was it recorded? Preserve the account, context and permission to use it.
- 02
Examine the match
Compare specific details against independent records. Include misses, ambiguities and the number of opportunities for a match.
- 03
Trace information access
Consider prior knowledge, ordinary sensory routes, chance, information leakage and later reconstruction.
- 04
Distinguish explanations
Choose observations or tests that could separate competing accounts. Record what would weaken each explanation.
- 05
Contribute precisely
State which claim is supported and how it affects a Big Question. Keep unresolved steps visible.
03 / DEEPENING BQ001
Does consciousness continue
beyond the individual?
UNRESOLVEDA broad question becomes more investigable when we separate its component claims. These are proposed subquestions, not newly registered Big Questions.
How does a reported experience relate to measurable brain activity?
What timing, measurements and limitations are needed before drawing an inference?
What would demonstrate continuity of an individual’s memory or identity?
Which details distinguish personal continuity from other explanations?
Which observations could distinguish survival from competing explanations?
Design a comparison in which the explanations make meaningfully different predictions.
04 / MAKE EVERY CONNECTION TRACEABLE
A finding can change
the shape of a question.
SupportsChallengesRefinesContextualisesInconclusive
Proposed BQ contribution record
Link the precise claim and question to sources, supporting and conflicting observations, alternatives, uncertainty, the next discriminating test and revision history.
Acceptance can evolve
A specific claim can become well-supported when suitable evidence warrants it. Acceptance remains scoped, reviewed and revisable. Registering a blocked record keeps the question available; it does not count as a completed read or verified conclusion.
Database first: each larger connection should lead back to an inspectable record. Repeated citations of the same underlying work are not independent corroboration. Publication and reuse permissions require separate review.
05 / MEANING BELONGS IN THE RECORD
Experience deserves care.
Explanation deserves examination.
An experience may transform someone’s sense of identity, compassion or relationship with Pachamama. Those consequences deserve careful inquiry while its external cause remains uncertain. Spiritual, philosophical and scientific interpretations can coexist as attributed perspectives.
Comparisons with living traditions must preserve their language, context, community authority and sharing restrictions. Similar descriptions do not establish a shared cause or make distinct traditions interchangeable.
More understanding can mean a sharper question,
even before it means an answer.
06 / DOORS OF PERCEPTION
Open the door.
Observe what enters.
Imagine a wardrobe opening onto an unfamiliar forest. A lantern offers enough light for the next step. A lion stands beside a prism; colour moves through its faces. For AkashicPRISM, this is an invitation to explore experience with curiosity, courage and discernment.
The founder’s creative prompt brings together Vipassana, “doors of perception” and C. S. Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. The readings below are our proposed artistic associations, rather than claims about the author’s intentions or a shared doctrine.
A threshold of experience
An unfamiliar sensation, dream or idea opens a question. Record what was experienced before deciding what it means.
Courage with compassion
Meet unfamiliar accounts respectfully. Let courage include the willingness to revise a cherished interpretation.
The pull of enchantment
A beautiful explanation can become persuasive before it becomes well-supported. Ask what alternatives remain and what could distinguish them. This metaphor does not label people or spiritual traditions as deceptive.
Several readings, visible differences
Keep literal, metaphorical, psychological, spiritual and cultural interpretations alongside their sources, uncertainties and limits. Agreement between interpretations does not by itself establish a common cause.
A contemplative invitation
Vipassana remains a distinct contemplative reference. This page offers a PRISM reflection, not meditation instruction: what did I notice, what meaning did I give it, and what remains unknown?
An account may be personally meaningful while its explanation remains open. Dreams, trance reports and other unusual experiences can generate research questions; any claim about the external world still needs evidence appropriate to that claim.
Keep the wonder.
Leave room for another explanation.
Literary and contemplative metaphor · AkashicPRISM v0.2. The OM-to-Omega artwork above is symbolic. This section changes no record’s evidence status, access permissions or publication rights.
FRAMEWORK MATRIX · EXPLORATORY DESIGN
Where perspectives meet.
Seven proposed combinations to examine. These are design assessments, not measured rankings of the best and worst frameworks.
Promising · AKN-COMB-001
Anomalous-report inquiry
- Possible symbiosis
- Inspect sources and preserve alternative explanations.
- Conflict or weakness
- A structured review can still rely on weak or dependent sources.
- Next discriminating check
- Compare one authorised report with a PSI-only assessment.
| Component | Intended contribution | Validation |
|---|---|---|
| AWAKEN | Source scrutiny | Untested here |
| PRISM | Claim separation | Untested here |
| AkashicPSI | Focused investigation | Untested here |
Pairwise compatibility does not establish that a larger combination works well. Record exact versions, shared source dependencies and the task before comparing results. A future tesseract view could display four chosen comparison dimensions; it must not imply measured values where none exist.
PRISM collection · Dataset r36
The collection, with context.
Verified saved snapshot: . These figures describe the working register, not the number of documents available in public search.
- External source records
- 151
Metadata entries, not a count of independent studies or completed paper appraisals.
- Candidate Big Question links
- 148
Discovery associations awaiting adjudication; not accepted evidence or graph edges.
- Reviewed Reddit records
- 154
Scoped post reviews; linked papers, media and comments may need separate review.
- Stored assessments
- 161
Assessment history is preserved. This is not a count of endorsed conclusions.
Latest batch: 4 new metadata records; 5 duplicates skipped; 10 access limits logged. Two protocol/registry records and two empirical reports. Abstracts or selected sections reviewed; no complete scientific papers or participant datasets added.
Candidate links by question: 62 to BQ001; 53 to BQ002; 33 to the BQ003 authoring candidate in the collection registry. This is the collection’s scope, not a census of every website inquiry.
All 151 external records retain unassessed evidence status and unknown rights status. Source counts are not study counts. Reading depths vary, and a reconciled total of fully appraised independent works is not yet available.
SQLite integrity and foreign-key checks passed. Existing assessments and conclusions were preserved. Aggregate figures only: this update does not publish private source records or synchronise the sandbox database. Software versions, dataset revisions and evidence quality remain separate.
Download the dated statistics (JSON)HISTORICAL v0.2 RELEASE CHECKPOINT · 23 SEPTEMBER 2026
AkashicPRISM v0.2
A working register. An evolving interface.
This pre-alpha release brings the documented assessment-register capabilities together with the combination explorer, Doors of Perception artwork and contribution transparency. Earlier v0.1 work remains in the project history.
Implemented and checked
At this earlier software-release checkpoint, the private register identified schema 0.2.0 and dataset revision 3. The current collection totals are shown above. It separates evidence, reading depth, integration and restrictions, and preserves assessment history. Integrity, foreign-key and six synthetic behaviour checks passed without changing the source database.
Still draft or unverified
The separate perspective schema and Inquiry Module remain draft v0.1. OMNI v0.5 remains proposed. The master reports a hosted snapshot at r2; this release does not independently verify or synchronise it. Combination assessments remain design hypotheses.
No new source reads, evidence promotions or canonical acceptances. BQ001 remains UNRESOLVED. Software version, dataset revision and evidence quality are separate. Browser interaction was not tested for this release.
Read the machine-readable release record →Short Transparency Report
Founder-led vision, questions, experiential context and editorial direction; developed through human–AI collaboration. AI assisted with synthesis, alternative interpretations, wording, code and artwork. Framework connections are proposals; literary imagery is metaphor. Contribution percentages were not measured.
Contribution breakdown and source limits
Founder insights and experience
The founder supplied the original vision, questions, lived-experience context, PRISM imagery and editorial choices. Experience informs the inquiry without independently verifying an external explanation. Share of total contribution: unmeasured.
Framework sources
AkashicNET, AkashicOMNI, AkashicPRISM and AkashicPSI provide the project context linked on this page. Their connections and the combination assessments are provisional design interpretations, not independent empirical corroboration. Share of total contribution: unmeasured.
Other sources and references
The Doors of Perception section names C. S. Lewis’s The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe and Vipassana as creative and contemplative references. It does not present a textual scholarship review, teacher-endorsed meditation guidance or a scientific-paper appraisal. No new study was appraised for this section. Share of total contribution: unmeasured.
AI synthesis and augmentation
AI helped organise the material, develop connections and alternatives, draft prose, implement the page and generate the displayed cosmic artwork. These contributions may contain errors and do not substitute for independent verification. Share of total contribution: unmeasured.
These roles overlap. A percentage of words, time or source citations would measure different things; none measures the value or originality of a contribution. Any future percentage report should name its method, denominator, scope and uncertainty. Retrospective reports should be dated and specific to the post, preserving its original record.
Added 23 September 2026 · Scope: this page. This disclosure does not certify other posts or change evidence, rights or Big Question statuses.
