Cognitive sovereignty is the collective capacity of a board, a committee or a deliberative function to keep its judgment independent, calibrated and falsifiable even when artificial-intelligence tools push the other way. The construct was introduced by Francesco Saverio Canepa in the paper of the same name (2026, DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/6N8TG).
The problem it names is structural: AI systems optimised for user satisfaction tend to flatter, inflate confidence and — when many organisations use the same tools — homogenise reasoning. The paper integrates four established research streams (sycophancy in RLHF models, automation over-reliance, deskilling, algorithmic monoculture) into four operational dimensions: independence of judgment, resistance to homogenisation, calibration of uncertainty and traceability of the burden of proof.
From the construct the paper derives a governance framework for boards: mandatory challenge above a materiality threshold, a prospective deliberative ledger, separation between who decides and who challenges, and calibration verified over time. The proposed protective mechanism is the cognitive contradictor. Summary and full paper in the Research section.
