PSEIB-v1 — Parent–State Emergency Intervention Boundary

Purpose

This protocol tests whether responsibility, authority, and accountability are explicitly defined and enforceable at the parent–state boundary during emergency health or educational interventions involving a child.

The objective is not to adjudicate policy correctness or moral preference, but to determine whether a clear, pre-established chain of responsibility exists before an emergency occurs — or whether responsibility becomes disputed, fragmented, or retroactively assigned.

Core Experimental Question

When an emergency intervention affecting a child is initiated without timely parental consent, is there always a single, explicit, and accepted authority responsible for the decision — or does accountability become ambiguous between parents, state actors, and institutional staff?

Minimal Scenario

Situation: A child experiences an emergency health or educational crisis (e.g., acute medical episode at school, sudden behavioral incident requiring removal, restraint, or emergency placement).

Constraints:

• Parent or guardian is unavailable or unreachable in real time
• State or institutional actors initiate intervention based on perceived emergency authority
• Action is taken under doctrines such as emergency exception, in loco parentis, or “best interest of the child”

Post-event: Parent contests necessity, proportionality, or authorization; or state actors question parental adequacy or compliance.

Explicit Parties with Plausible Responsibility Claims

• Parent(s) / Guardian(s): Primary custodial authority; consent holder; contest intervention after the fact.
• State Authorities: Child protective services, emergency medical services, or designated state agents invoking emergency authority.
• School / Healthcare Staff: Teachers, principals, school nurses, physicians, or administrators acting under delegated or situational authority.

Pre-Registered Test Protocol

Step 1 — Case Selection

• Select one real or simulated incident in health
• Select one real or simulated incident in education
• De-identify all materials; preserve timelines and decision logic

Step 2 — Artifact Collection

• Timeline of actions and handoffs
• Consent forms, emergency orders, refusal or objection records
• Documented communications (calls, alerts, messages)
• Policies and legal authorities cited (statutes, emergency doctrine, in loco parentis)

Step 3 — Responsibility Attribution

Each party’s responsibility claim is recorded verbatim, including:

• Who claims authority for each action
• Who denies responsibility or claims exemption
• What authority is cited

Step 4 — Post-Event Review

Introduce a review condition (administrative inquiry, legal challenge, or policy audit) and re-evaluate responsibility attribution.

Closure Conditions (Binary)

PASS — Boundary Closed

• Every consequential action has a pre-established, documented owner
• Authority and accountability are accepted by all parties ex post
• No contradictory or competing responsibility claims emerge

FAIL — Boundary Disputed

• Two or more parties claim primary authority
• Responsibility is denied or reassigned after the fact
• No protocol-defined final arbiter resolves the dispute
• Evidence includes blame shifting, legal action, or unresolved administrative review

A failure conclusively demonstrates a responsibility gap at the parent–state emergency intervention boundary.

Required Output

Responsibility Statement Table

| Action / Decision | Claimed Responsible Party | Documentation / Evidence | Disputed (Y/N) |
|-------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------|----------------|

Minimal Summary Statement

“Responsibility for [action] was / was not clearly assignable. Dispute arose at [step]. Closure requires protocol clarification at [boundary].”

Implications

If Boundary Closed

Existing consent hierarchies, notification pathways, and emergency authority protocols are sufficient under tested conditions.

If Boundary Disputed

Publish the failure to identify specific authority gaps, notification failures, or escalation ambiguities requiring explicit repair.

This protocol evaluates responsibility structure, not moral correctness or legal merit. It makes no policy recommendations.

Results are publishable regardless of outcome. A negative result closes the question under PSEIB-v1 conditions.