ASKשאלו
FLOWHIJACKED
עב

CO REGULATION · EVIDENCE & PUBLICATIONS

Every claim opens to its source, boundary and contradiction.

The Borrowed Nervous System evidence map connects 32 claims to supporting sources, what those sources do not establish, confidence and the numerical language that is permitted.

EPISTEMIC GRAMMAR

CLAIM → SOURCE → SUPPORT → LIMIT → CONFIDENCE

  1. 01Empirical result
  2. 02Supported interpretation
  3. 03Flow Hijacked synthesis
  4. 04Formal transfer
  5. 05Novel hypothesis
  6. 06Open question

Publication titles remain in their source language. The interface keeps findings, interpretations, synthesis and hypotheses visibly separate.

32 MAPPED CLAIMS

Not a bibliography wall—a responsibility map for each sentence.

C01

Supported interpretation · High · PASS

Relational context can alter stress physiology and regulation in humans.

What the map supports

Other-person input can alter state-transition conditions without implying a universal mechanism.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Effects depend on relationship quality, context, development and individual differences.

Do not present r=.24 as an estimate of HPA/autonomic buffering or of co-regulation.

Numerical status

QUALITATIVE FOR PHYSIOLOGYNL09

No physiology-specific effect size is permitted. If useful, general social-support context may be quantified as 60 meta-analyses / >2,700 studies / ~2.1M participants, overall r=.24 [95% CI .22,.26].

5 supporting sources — open details
S008Major review · Tier A

The role of oxytocin in social bonding, stress regulation and mental health

Olff et al.

Boundary: Strong context dependence

Primary source
S009Review · Tier A

Neuroendocrinology of coping styles

Koolhaas et al.

Boundary: Animal-to-human transfer limits

Primary source
S010Review · Tier A

Modulation of the HPA Axis by Early Life Stress Exposure

van Bodegom et al.

Boundary: Mostly developmental/preclinical integration

Primary source
S011Major review · Tier A

Annual Research Review: Early adversity, HPA axis, and child psychopathology

Koss & Gunnar

Boundary: Developmental moderators substantial

Primary source
S012Review · Tier A

Ten Surprising Facts About Stressful Life Events and Disease Risk

Cohen, Murphy, Prather

Boundary: Not specific to attachment

Primary source
C02

Supported interpretation · Moderate-High · PASS

Attachment is better treated as a history-dependent regulatory expectation than a fixed personality label.

What the map supports

Attachment variables belong primarily among slow state parameters / priors.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Measurement approaches and categories differ; causality is limited.

No fixed-type, deterministic, or causal percentage claims.

Numerical status

NUMERIC ALLOWEDNL06,NL07,NL19

Adult attachment meta-analysis: 224 studies, 245 samples, N=79,722; anxiety↔negative mental health r=.42; avoidance r=.28; positive mental health r=-.29 and -.24. Working-alliance associations are small: anxiety r=-.09; avoidance r=-.13 (k=33 each).

5 supporting sources — open details
S001Major review · Tier A

An attachment perspective on psychopathology

Mikulincer & Shaver

Boundary: Broad review; not causal proof

Primary source
S002Integrative social neuroscience model · Tier B

A functional neuro-anatomical model of human attachment (NAMA)

Long, Verbeke, Ein-Dor, Vrtička

Boundary: Model integrates heterogeneous paradigms

Primary source
S003Developmental review · Tier A

Sensitive periods in human social development

Feldman

Boundary: Sensitive period evidence not uniform

Primary source
S004Developmental psychopathology review · Tier B

The Parent's Capacity to Treat the Child as a Psychological Agent

Sharp & Fonagy

Boundary: Construct measurement varies

Primary source
S005Review · Tier B

Parental Reflective Functioning: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications

Luyten et al.

Boundary: Theory-heavy

Primary source
C03

Empirical result · High · PASS

Interpersonal synchrony occurs across behavior, physiology and neural signals.

What the map supports

Coupling is measurable, but synchrony magnitude is not equivalent to health or causal influence.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Common input, task structure and analytic choices can generate apparent synchrony.

Do not collapse modalities into one universal synchrony effect.

Numerical status

NUMERIC ALLOWEDNL10

Neural↔behavioral synchrony: 37 samples, N=1,342, r=.32 [95% CI .23,.41]. Physiological↔behavioral: 13 samples, N=369, r=.18 [.06,.30].

8 supporting sources — open details
S017Foundational hyperscanning experiment · Tier B

Inter-Brain Synchronization during Social Interaction

Dumas et al.

Boundary: Small early study; common-input concerns

Primary source
S018Methods review · Tier A

Hyperscanning: A Valid Method to Study Neural Inter-brain Underpinnings of Social Interaction

Czeszumski et al.

Boundary: Validity depends on null models and design

Primary source
S019Human hyperscanning experiment · Tier B

Neural Synchronization during Face-to-Face Communication

Jiang et al.

Boundary: Communication task specific

Primary source
S021Naturalistic human study · Tier B

Brain-to-Brain Synchrony during Naturalistic Social Interactions

Kinreich et al.

Boundary: Synchrony ≠ mechanism by itself

Primary source
S024Systematic review/meta-analysis · Tier A

Cooperative Behavior Evokes Interbrain Synchrony: systematic review and meta-analysis

Czeszumski et al.

Boundary: fNIRS-specific evidence

Primary source
S025Systematic review · Tier A

What has social neuroscience learned from hyperscanning studies of spoken communication?

Kelsen et al.

Boundary: Heterogeneous methods

Primary source
S026Methods review · Tier A

Quantification of inter-brain coupling: review of current methods

Hakim et al.

Boundary: Metric choice can change conclusion

Primary source
S028Team study · Tier B

Inter-brain synchrony in teams predicts collective performance

Reinero, Dikker, Van Bavel

Boundary: Prediction ≠ causal control

Primary source
C04

Supported interpretation · High · PASS

Higher synchrony is not intrinsically beneficial.

What the map supports

Co-regulation and co-dysregulation are both possible coupled regimes.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Outcome depends on modality, context, directionality and dyad state.

Never write 'higher synchrony predicts better relationship/therapy outcome' as a general rule.

Numerical status

NUMERIC ALLOWEDNL11,NL12

Autonomic synchrony relationship effect is small/marginal overall (ES=.09, p>.10, I²=76%); psychotherapy NVS overall r=.03, p=.644, with modality-specific opposite-sign effects.

4 supporting sources — open details
S020Review · Tier A

Synchrony in Psychotherapy: A Review and Integrative Framework

Koole & Tschacher

Boundary: Synchrony meaning is context-sensitive

Primary source
S022Methods critique · Tier A

On the interpretation of synchronization in EEG hyperscanning studies: a cautionary note

Burgess

Boundary: Highlights spurious synchrony risks

Primary source
S023Human fNIRS study · Tier B

Parenting Stress Undermines Mother-Child Brain-to-Brain Synchrony

Azhari et al.

Boundary: Cross-sectional limitations

Primary source
S026Methods review · Tier A

Quantification of inter-brain coupling: review of current methods

Hakim et al.

Boundary: Metric choice can change conclusion

Primary source
C05

Supported interpretation · High · PASS

Oxytocin should not be described as a simple trust hormone.

What the map supports

Neuromodulators act as context-sensitive control parameters, not one-dimensional valence signals.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Context, sex, receptor distribution and baseline state matter.

No 'oxytocin increases trust by X%' or 'oxytocin = bonding' wording.

Numerical status

NUMERIC ALLOWEDNL13

63 studies qualitatively; 51 pooled, n=3,741. Causal pre-post g=.079; social vs no-social g=.256; correlational mean effect reported as z=.137.

5 supporting sources — open details
S008Major review · Tier A

The role of oxytocin in social bonding, stress regulation and mental health

Olff et al.

Boundary: Strong context dependence

Primary source
S030Critical review · Tier A

Is Oxytocin 'Nature's Medicine'?

Carter et al.

Boundary: Counters simplistic trust-hormone narrative

Primary source
S032Human transcriptomic/network study · Tier B

Oxytocin pathway gene networks in the human brain

Quintana et al.

Boundary: Expression ≠ functional causation

Primary source
S034Review · Tier B

Oxytocin and social motivation

Gordon et al.

Boundary: Not a universal prosocial signal

Primary source
S035Review · Tier A

Brain oxytocin: how puzzle stones from animal studies translate into psychiatry

Grinevich & Neumann

Boundary: Human translation remains incomplete

Primary source
C06

Supported interpretation · Moderate · PASS

Social affiliation recruits dopamine and endogenous opioid mechanisms in addition to oxytocin.

What the map supports

Multiple neuromodulatory axes can reshape gain/salience/plasticity at different timescales.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Human causal evidence differs strongly by system; some anchors are preclinical.

Do not attach a numeric dopamine effect unless separately publication-locked.

Numerical status

PARTIAL NUMERICNL14,NL15

Human μ-opioid antagonist meta-analysis: 17 outcomes, N=455, Hedges g=-.20 [95% CI -.32,-.07], I²=23%. Social reward review: 384 studies, 42,118 participants/subjects.

5 supporting sources — open details
S031Review · Tier B

Dopamine and Oxytocin Interactions Underlying Behaviors

Baskerville & Douglas

Boundary: Much evidence preclinical

Primary source
S033Human PET study · Tier B

Social Laughter Triggers Endogenous Opioid Release in Humans

Manninen et al.

Boundary: Specific social behavior

Primary source
S036Preclinical causal experiment · Tier C

A Critical Role for Nucleus Accumbens Dopamine in Partner-Preference Formation

Aragona et al.

Boundary: Prairie vole transfer

Primary source
S037Review · Tier A

Opioid receptors: distinct roles in mood disorders

Lutz & Kieffer

Boundary: Not social-specific

Primary source
S038Review · Tier B

Music and social bonding: self-other merging and neurohormonal mechanisms

Tarr, Launay, Dunbar

Boundary: Mechanisms partly inferential

Primary source
C07

Supported interpretation · Moderate-High · PASS

Therapeutic relationship variables are meaningfully associated with treatment process and outcomes.

What the map supports

Therapy can be modeled as repeated structured relational perturbation only as FH synthesis.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Alliance may be marker, moderator and mechanism; cannot assume isolated causality.

Association ≠ proof that alliance alone causes treatment change.

Numerical status

NUMERIC ALLOWEDNL01,NL18,NL24

General alliance meta-analysis: 295 independent studies, >30,000 patients, r=.278 [.256,.299]. PTSD alliance: 12-study meta-analysis, r=-.34. Adjusted alliance correlations across 60 samples remain r=.23-.31.

5 supporting sources — open details
S020Review · Tier A

Synchrony in Psychotherapy: A Review and Integrative Framework

Koole & Tschacher

Boundary: Synchrony meaning is context-sensitive

Primary source
S043Major review · Tier A

The Mentalizing Approach to Psychopathology

Luyten et al.

Boundary: Mechanistic claims vary by disorder

Primary source
S045Clinical review · Tier B

The therapeutic relationship in EMDR therapy

Hase & Brisch

Boundary: Modality-specific

Primary source
S046Clinical study · Tier B

Therapeutic Alliance and Rapport Modulate Responses to Psilocybin Assisted Therapy for Depression

Murphy et al.

Boundary: Special treatment context

Primary source
S047Systematic review · Tier A

The role of mentalizing in psychological interventions in adults

Luyten et al.

Boundary: Intervention heterogeneity

Primary source
C08

Supported interpretation · High · PASS

Metastability is a defensible neural-dynamics concept but is operationalized inconsistently in human neuroimaging.

What the map supports

Use metastability precisely: long-lived transient regimes / flexible transitions, not a metaphor for any variability.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Definitions and metrics vary; resting-state dominates empirical work.

Do not invent a 'metastability score' or treatment effect.

Numerical status

NO NUMERICAL CLAIM REQUIRED

Use precise qualitative definitions of metastability and methodological heterogeneity; no single pooled metastability effect is authorized.

4 supporting sources — open details
S061Major review · Tier A

Metastable dynamics of neural circuits and networks

La Camera et al.

Boundary: Mostly circuit-level evidence

Primary source
S062Major perspective · Tier A

Dynamical properties and mechanisms of metastability: A perspective in neuroscience

2025 perspective

Boundary: Recent synthesis; not relational-specific

Primary source
S063Critical review · Tier A

Metastability demystified

2024 review

Boundary: Definitions/measures vary

Primary source
S064Scoping review · Tier A

Metastability in the wild: empirical neuroimaging scoping review

Wijaya et al.

Boundary: Field remains methodologically heterogeneous

Primary source
C09

Empirical/formal result · High for neural; low for relational · PASS WITH BOUNDARY

Stable recurrent neural systems can show strong transient amplification through non-normal mechanisms.

What the map supports

Person-level relational non-normality is formal transfer, not established clinical fact.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Evidence is at neural-circuit/computational level.

No patient-level or relationship-level amplification factor is authorized.

Numerical status

FORMAL TRANSFER — NO EMPIRICAL NUMBER

Non-normality/transient amplification may be described mathematically and at neural-circuit model level only.

2 supporting sources — open details
S058Theoretical/computational neuroscience · Tier F

Balanced Amplification: A New Mechanism of Selective Amplification of Neural Activity Patterns

Murphy & Miller

Boundary: Neural circuit model; not relational evidence

Primary source
S059Computational neuroscience · Tier F

Optimal control of transient dynamics in balanced networks supports generation of complex movements

Hennequin, Vogels, Gerstner

Boundary: Motor-network model; formal transfer only

Primary source
C10

Formal result · Moderate · PASS WITH BOUNDARY

Structural network models can quantify aspects of state controllability and control energy.

What the map supports

Use as mathematical vocabulary for reachability, never as proof that a person can be 'controlled'.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Linear structural controllability is an approximation; behavioral reachability is not equivalent.

No claim that a particular person has measurable 'X% controllability' or a therapeutic control-energy prescription.

Numerical status

FORMAL TRANSFER — NO EMPIRICAL NUMBER

Controllability may be used as formal reachability/control-energy language only.

1 supporting sources — open details
S060Network control theory / human connectome · Tier F

Controllability of structural brain networks

Gu et al.

Boundary: Linear structural model; clinical transfer limited

Primary source
C11

Flow Hijacked synthesis · Hypothesis-level · HYPOTHESIS

Repeated fast relational events may alter slower learned expectations and regulation capacities.

What the map supports

Model fast x variables nested in slow z variables; repeated co-regulation can update z.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Direct fast–slow identification at the person-relational level is incomplete.

No estimated ε, time constant, or slow-variable effect unless directly measured.

Numerical status

FLOW HIJACKED SYNTHESIS — NO EMPIRICAL NUMBER

Fast–slow relational updating is a multiscale synthesis; numbers require future direct parameter-identification studies.

7 supporting sources — open details
S003Developmental review · Tier A

Sensitive periods in human social development

Feldman

Boundary: Sensitive period evidence not uniform

Primary source
S006Review · Tier A

Early Adverse Experiences and the Developing Brain

Bick & Nelson

Boundary: Adversity is heterogeneous

Primary source
S007Review · Tier A

Early life stress and development: potential mechanisms for adverse outcomes

Smith & Pollak

Boundary: Mechanisms vary across exposure type

Primary source
S010Review · Tier A

Modulation of the HPA Axis by Early Life Stress Exposure

van Bodegom et al.

Boundary: Mostly developmental/preclinical integration

Primary source
S011Major review · Tier A

Annual Research Review: Early adversity, HPA axis, and child psychopathology

Koss & Gunnar

Boundary: Developmental moderators substantial

Primary source
S050Review · Tier A

Psychoneuroimmunology of Early-Life Stress

Danese & Lewis

Boundary: Trauma types heterogeneous

Primary source
S051Review · Tier A

Biological embedding of childhood adversity

Berens, Jensen, Nelson

Boundary: Mechanistic triangulation needed

Primary source
C12

New hypothesis · Novel · HYPOTHESIS

Borrowed Gain Geometry: another person may alter effective gain and accessible state space, not merely supply input.

What the map supports

Formalize testable predictions rather than present as established fact.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

No direct study estimates a relational effective operator A_r or relational resolvent.

No measured A_r, relational resolvent norm, barrier height, or gain value may be reported.

Numerical status

NOVEL HYPOTHESIS — NO EMPIRICAL NUMBER

Borrowed Gain Geometry remains a testable Flow Hijacked hypothesis.

8 supporting sources — open details
S008Major review · Tier A

The role of oxytocin in social bonding, stress regulation and mental health

Olff et al.

Boundary: Strong context dependence

Primary source
S017Foundational hyperscanning experiment · Tier B

Inter-Brain Synchronization during Social Interaction

Dumas et al.

Boundary: Small early study; common-input concerns

Primary source
S020Review · Tier A

Synchrony in Psychotherapy: A Review and Integrative Framework

Koole & Tschacher

Boundary: Synchrony meaning is context-sensitive

Primary source
S029Major review · Tier A

The Neuroendocrinology of Social Isolation

Cacioppo et al.

Boundary: Broad causal pathways

Primary source
S058Theoretical/computational neuroscience · Tier F

Balanced Amplification: A New Mechanism of Selective Amplification of Neural Activity Patterns

Murphy & Miller

Boundary: Neural circuit model; not relational evidence

Primary source
S059Computational neuroscience · Tier F

Optimal control of transient dynamics in balanced networks supports generation of complex movements

Hennequin, Vogels, Gerstner

Boundary: Motor-network model; formal transfer only

Primary source
S060Network control theory / human connectome · Tier F

Controllability of structural brain networks

Gu et al.

Boundary: Linear structural model; clinical transfer limited

Primary source
S061Major review · Tier A

Metastable dynamics of neural circuits and networks

La Camera et al.

Boundary: Mostly circuit-level evidence

Primary source
C13

Supported interpretation · High · PASS

The therapeutic alliance has a robust but not necessarily causal association with psychotherapy outcome.

What the map supports

Treat alliance as a dynamic process variable and candidate mechanism, not a singular causal lever.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Heterogeneity, reciprocal effects and therapist/client contributions complicate causal decomposition.

Do not convert correlation to causal treatment efficacy.

Numerical status

NUMERIC ALLOWEDNL01,NL24

Alliance-outcome r=.278 [.256,.299] in the large synthesis; adjusted estimates across 60 samples remain r=.23-.31.

3 supporting sources — open details
S066Meta-analysis; 295 studies / >30,000 patients · Tier A

The Alliance in Adult Psychotherapy: A Meta-Analytic Synthesis

Wampold & Horvath

Boundary: Robust association does not by itself establish causality

Primary source
S067Multilevel meta-analysis · Tier A

Examining therapist effects in the alliance-outcome relationship

Horvath & Wampold

Boundary: Moderator analysis remains observational

Primary source
S071Systematic review + meta-analysis · Tier A

Therapeutic alliance and treatment outcomes in teletherapy

Aafjes-van Doorn et al.

Boundary: Small effect and substantial heterogeneity

Primary source
C14

Supported interpretation · Moderate-High · PASS

Alliance rupture is associated with poorer outcome, while resolved rupture is associated with better outcome.

What the map supports

Rupture-repair is a candidate relational transition process rather than proof of attractor revision.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Training/supervision effects are less secure than repair-outcome association.

Training to repair ruptures was not significant: r=.11, p=.28; do not imply proven training efficacy.

Numerical status

NUMERIC ALLOWEDNL02,NL03

Rupture repair: 11 studies, N=1,314, r=.29, d=.62, 95% CI [.10,.47]. Direct ruptures: 4 publications, N=301, r=-.21; z=-.22 [95% CI -.303,-.133].

2 supporting sources — open details
S069Meta-analysis · Tier A

Alliance Rupture Repair: A Meta-Analysis

Eubanks et al.

Boundary: Repair association stronger than evidence for training causality

Primary source
S0702026 meta-analysis · Tier A

Alliance Ruptures and Psychotherapy Outcomes: A Multilevel Meta-Analysis

Babl et al.

Boundary: Only four publications; N=301

Primary source
C15

Supported interpretation · High for association; moderate for direction · PASS WITH CONTRADICTION

PTSD severity and social support are strongly linked, but the direction and causal dynamics are contested.

What the map supports

Use reciprocal-coupling language cautiously; robust association is firmer than directional causality.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Cross-lag estimates may be sensitive to statistical specification and regression artifacts.

Directional causality must not be stated without simultaneously noting the 2023 re-meta-analysis/simulation challenge.

Numerical status

NUMERIC + MANDATORY CONTRADICTIONNL04,NL05

Wang et al.: 75 samples, N=32,402, 355 effect sizes; support→PTSD β=-.10 and PTSD→support β=-.09.

3 supporting sources — open details
S074Longitudinal meta-analysis; 75 samples · Tier A

Social support and PTSD: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies

Wang et al.

Boundary: Cross-lag interpretation challenged by later re-analysis

Primary source
S075Meta-analysis · Tier A

Moderators of social support and PTSD symptoms

Zalta et al.

Boundary: High heterogeneity

Primary source
S076Re-meta-analysis + simulation · Tier A

Prospective associations between social support and PTSD may be spurious

Sorjonen & Melin

Boundary: Challenges prospective inference rather than cross-sectional association

Primary source
C16

Empirical/methodological result · High · PASS

HRV is useful for cardiac autonomic research but cannot be treated as a direct readout of 'safety' or sympathovagal balance.

What the map supports

Use HRV as one state variable within a multivariate autonomic model.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Respiration, posture, age, fitness, device and analysis choices affect interpretation.

No LF/HF='sympathovagal balance'; no HRV='felt safety meter'.

Numerical status

QUALITATIVE BOUNDARYNL16

No single HRV threshold/effect is required. State that HRV is not a specific marker of sympathetic outflow or sympathovagal balance and 'vagal tone' requires caution.

4 supporting sources — open details
S079Methods/recommendations review · Tier A

Heart Rate Variability and Cardiac Vagal Tone in Psychophysiological Research

Laborde, Mosley, Thayer

Boundary: HRV can be misconstrued; respiration/design/reporting matter

Primary source
S080Critical review / reanalysis · Tier A

Utility of low frequency HRV as an index of sympathetic cardiac tone

Reyes del Paso et al. / review record

Boundary: LF and LF/HF are not specific sympathetic/balance indices

Primary source
S0812026 evidence-based guidelines · Tier A

Guidelines for Rigor and Reproducibility of Heart Rate Variability

Carter et al.

Boundary: HRV not a specific marker of sympathetic outflow or sympathovagal balance; vagal tone language requires caution

Primary source
S082Scoping review; 291 articles · Tier A

Cardiac vagal recovery following acute psychological stress in adults

Roddick et al.

Boundary: Large methodological variation in timing/conditions

Primary source
C17

Supported interpretation · High · PASS / CONTESTED

Polyvagal Theory contains influential clinical ideas but several foundational neuroanatomical/evolutionary claims are actively disputed.

What the map supports

Do not use PVT as mechanistic backbone; separate validated autonomic facts from theory-specific claims.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Current literature contains direct disagreement among experts.

Do not present author count as an effect size or proof by authority.

Numerical status

QUALITATIVE/CONTESTEDNL17

The 2026 critique invited 39 experts and reports all but one accepted/coauthored; use only to document the scale and nature of the dispute, not as a vote-count proof.

3 supporting sources — open details
S083Proponent review · Tier B

Polyvagal Theory: Current Status, Clinical Applications, and Future Directions

Porges

Boundary: Author-originated theory paper; not independent validation

Primary source
S084Multi-author critical appraisal · Tier A

Why The Polyvagal Theory Is Untenable

Grossman et al.

Boundary: Strong critique; should be read alongside proponent response/current account

Primary source
S085Evolutionary critique · Tier A

The Evolution of Sociality and the Polyvagal Theory

Doody, Burghardt, Dinets

Boundary: Addresses evolutionary premise rather than all clinical claims

Primary source
C18

Supported interpretation · High · PASS

Human oxytocin findings are heterogeneous and do not support a simple social-bonding hormone model.

What the map supports

Model OXT as one context-sensitive neuromodulatory parameter among several.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Assay, context, sex, development and clinical status moderate findings.

No universal prosocial or bonding effect.

Numerical status

NUMERIC ALLOWEDNL13

Oxytocin evidence may use the locked n=3,741 / 51-study pooled corpus and the small/heterogeneous effects in NL13.

4 supporting sources — open details
S086Systematic review + meta-analysis · Tier A

Endogenous Oxytocin and Human Social Interactions

Burenkova et al.

Boundary: Causal designs did not show expected overall hormonal response; assays/methods heterogeneous

Primary source
S087Systematic review + coordinate meta-analysis · Tier A

Oxytocin and brain activity in humans

Grace et al.

Boundary: Effects heterogeneous across tasks and regions

Primary source
S088Systematic review + meta-analysis · Tier A

Exogenous effects of oxytocin in five psychiatric disorders

Peled-Avron, Abu-Akel, Shamay-Tsoory

Boundary: Small/variable clinical effects

Primary source
S089Four meta-analyses · Tier A

Developmental programming of oxytocin through early-life stress

Ellis et al.

Boundary: Effect sizes small; clinical samples inconsistent

Primary source
C19

Supported interpretation · High · PASS

Attachment security/insecurity is systematically related to emotion-regulation patterns across development and adulthood.

What the map supports

Use attachment as slow regulatory history/priors, not immutable type.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Measurement frameworks differ and direction of causality remains incompletely identified.

Do not create one pooled 'attachment→regulation' effect across heterogeneous outcomes.

Numerical status

NUMERIC/COUNTS ALLOWEDNL06,NL07,NL08

Adult mental-health meta-analysis N=79,722 with locked r values; adult regulation systematic review 37 studies/N=2,006; child meta-analytic review k=72 with outcome-specific Ns up to 9,167.

4 supporting sources — open details
S090Meta-analysis; 224 studies · Tier A

The relationship between adult attachment and mental health

Zhang et al.

Boundary: Association not causal destiny; moderators present

Primary source
S091Systematic review; 37 studies · Tier A

Attachment-Related Differences in Emotion Regulation in Adults

Eilert & Buchheim

Boundary: Limited preoccupied-attachment evidence

Primary source
S092Meta-analytic review · Tier A

Parent-child attachment and children's experience and regulation of emotion

Cooke et al.

Boundary: Does not establish direct mechanism

Primary source
S093Systematic review · Tier A

Parent–Child Attachment and Dynamic Emotion Regulation

Obeldobel, Brumariu, Kerns

Boundary: Only 15 studies; dynamic measurement still limited

Primary source
C20

Supported interpretation · High · PASS

Interpersonal synchrony is multimodal, modest-to-moderate in cross-level association, and highly context dependent.

What the map supports

FH should model coupling matrices and regimes, not a scalar 'synchrony score'.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Different modalities can dissociate; autonomic relationship effects may be small or opposite by branch.

No global synchrony score; no monotonic 'more is better'.

Numerical status

NUMERIC ALLOWEDNL10,NL11,NL12

Use modality-specific synchrony estimates only: NL10 cross-level correlations; NL11 autonomic branch-specific effects; NL12 psychotherapy NVS null/heterogeneous results.

5 supporting sources — open details
S094Systematic review + meta-analysis · Tier A

Multimodal Interpersonal Synchrony

Ohayon & Gordon

Boundary: Neural-behavioral moderate; physiological-behavioral small; neural-physiological inconsistent

Primary source
S095Systematic review + meta-analysis · Tier A

Interpersonal neural synchronization in close relationships

Zhao et al.

Boundary: fNIRS-specific; developmental moderators

Primary source
S096Systematic review + meta-analysis · Tier A

Interpersonal autonomic nervous system synchrony and relationship/performance

Mayo, Lavidor, Gordon

Boundary: Relationship effect small/marginal and highly heterogeneous

Primary source
S097Systematic review; 42 studies · Tier A

On human synchrony: parent-infant physiological and neural synchrony

Lavezzo et al.

Boundary: Small homogeneous samples and heterogeneous pipelines

Primary source
S098Systematic review; 37 studies · Tier A

Parent–Child Synchrony After Early Childhood

Birk, Stewart, Olino

Boundary: Context can flip association with outcomes

Primary source
C21

Frontier interpretation · Frontier · FRONTIER

Social interaction may depend on coupled intrinsic neural timescales, but this is currently a frontier framework.

What the map supports

Strong candidate bridge for fast–slow section, labelled frontier.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

The timescale-matching account is proposed rather than established across contexts.

No interpersonal timescale-matching effect size is authorized.

Numerical status

FRONTIER — NO EFFECT SIZENL23

Coupled neural timescales may be presented as a 2026 frontier framework.

1 supporting sources — open details
S0992026 Trends review · Tier C

Coupled neural timescales in social interaction

Wolff & Dumas

Boundary: Frontier framework; proposed mechanism not yet established

Primary source
C22

Empirical result / frontier · Low-Moderate · FRONTIER

Brief interaction may leave measurable post-interaction changes in interbrain coupling.

What the map supports

Candidate mechanism linking fast interaction to slower relational updating.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Single-study evidence and interpretation of persistent coupling require replication.

No durable-plasticity percentage or causal estimate.

Numerical status

FRONTIER — NO NUMERICAL CLAIM REQUIRED

Post-interaction persistence/plasticity can be described as emerging single-study evidence only.

1 supporting sources — open details
S100Human fNIRS study · Tier B

Post-interaction neuroplasticity of inter-brain networks

Shamay-Tsoory et al.

Boundary: Single-study evidence; interpretation of 'plasticity' requires caution

Primary source
C23

Supported interpretation · Moderate-High · PASS

Familiar social proximity can reduce perceived/physiological effort and threat under some conditions, but social baseline effects are not universal.

What the map supports

Relational context may alter effective control cost rather than simply add positive input.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Theory and experimental paradigms vary; support can be mismatched or non-beneficial.

No universal percentage reduction in effort/threat from social proximity.

Numerical status

QUALITATIVE SYNTHESIS

Social-baseline/control-cost language remains qualitative unless a specific experimental estimate is later locked.

1 supporting sources — open details
C24

Flow Hijacked synthesis · Moderate · PASS WITH BOUNDARY

Dyads/groups can become locked into maladaptive coupled regulatory regimes, a possibility captured by social-allostasis models.

What the map supports

Map maladaptive co-regulation as coupled attractor-like regime, not as proven literal energy landscape.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Group-level set-point and load models remain partly theoretical.

No literal measured group set-point, attractor depth, or accumulated 'social allostatic load' value.

Numerical status

FLOW HIJACKED SYNTHESIS

Coupled maladaptive regulatory regimes/social allostasis may be used as model language.

4 supporting sources — open details
S105Theory/review · Tier B

Social Allostasis and Social Allostatic Load

Saxbe, Beckes, Stoycos, Coan

Boundary: Group-level allostatic load remains a model requiring tests

Primary source
S111Dyadic daily-diary studies · Tier B

Above and below baselines

Bar-Kalifa & Rafaeli

Boundary: Small dyadic samples

Primary source
S113EMA + dynamic structural equation models · Tier B

Loneliness modulates social threat detection in daily life

Shao et al.

Boundary: N=157; observational within-person dynamics

Primary source
S145Qualitative meta-synthesis · Tier B

Experience of loneliness among young people with depression

Achterbergh et al.

Boundary: Qualitative; young samples

Primary source
C25

Supported interpretation · Moderate-High · PASS

Loneliness can behave as a recursive multi-timescale state in which perceived rejection, withdrawal and loneliness reinforce one another.

What the map supports

Strong candidate for slow-fast feedback and self-reinforcing basin dynamics.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Not all longitudinal findings establish causation; population and culture matter.

Do not state a pooled coefficient or causal effect because it is not publication-locked here.

Numerical status

COUNTS/DIRECTION ONLYNL20

Loneliness-depression meta-analysis included 88 studies and N=40,068; authors report a moderate significant overall relation.

3 supporting sources — open details
S145Qualitative meta-synthesis · Tier B

Experience of loneliness among young people with depression

Achterbergh et al.

Boundary: Qualitative; young samples

Primary source
S148Longitudinal systematic review + meta-analysis · Tier A

Loneliness and new onset mental health problems

Mann et al.

Boundary: Residual confounding and heterogeneity

Primary source
C26

Supported interpretation · High · PASS

The neural response to social rejection is distributed and should not be reduced to a literal physical-pain circuit.

What the map supports

Reject single 'social pain center'; emphasize network/state configuration.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Different paradigms recruit overlapping and distinct systems.

No percentage overlap or 'same pain network' statistic unless separately locked.

Numerical status

QUALITATIVE/NETWORK CLAIM

Describe social rejection as distributed and not reducible to a single physical-pain circuit.

1 supporting sources — open details
C27

Empirical interpretation · High · PASS

Human mu-opioid signaling has a modest modulatory role in social connection but is not necessary for connection.

What the map supports

Opioids are one control parameter among interacting reward/affiliation systems.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Meta-analytic effect modest and potentially biased upward.

Do not say μ-opioid signaling is necessary for social connection.

Numerical status

NUMERIC ALLOWEDNL14

Naltrexone meta-analysis: Hedges g=-.20 [95% CI -.32,-.07], N=455, I²=23%; possible small-study bias noted.

2 supporting sources — open details
S131Preregistered systematic review + meta-analysis · Tier A

Endogenous mu-opioid modulation of social connection in humans

Løseth, Trøstheim, Leknes

Boundary: Effect modest; possible small-study/publication bias

Primary source
C28

Supported interpretation · High · PASS

Social reward is not a single stimulus class; intimacy, immediacy, interaction and reward phase materially change its neurobiology.

What the map supports

The social coupling term must be state-, channel- and context-dependent.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Operationalizations vary dramatically across studies.

No pooled 'social reward effect' exists in this lock.

Numerical status

COUNTS/STRUCTURE ONLYNL15

Systematic review mapped 384 studies and 42,118 participants/subjects; intimacy and immediacy explain major operational variation.

4 supporting sources — open details
S132Systematic review; 384 studies · Tier A

Defining social reward

Stijovic et al.

Boundary: Field definitions highly heterogeneous

Primary source
S133Randomized double-blind pharmacology + fMRI · Tier B

Effects of dopamine and opioid receptor antagonism on social/nonsocial rewards

Massaccesi et al.

Boundary: Behavioral effects limited; neural effects context-specific

Primary source
S135Randomized pharmacological experiment · Tier B

Dopaminergic and opioidergic regulation during social and nonsocial rewards

Korb et al.

Boundary: Subjective ratings not strongly modulated

Primary source
S137Systematic review · Tier A

Intranasal oxytocin on social reward processing in humans

Kraus, Výborová, Silani

Boundary: Mixed human effects; 19 studies

Primary source
C29

Supported interpretation · High · PASS

Touch and verbal support can alter pain/stress responses, while mere social presence is often insufficient.

What the map supports

Embodied co-regulation is channel-specific rather than a generic 'presence' effect.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Effects depend on relationship, channel and outcome; intervention certainty varies.

No generic 'touch reduces pain by X%' statement.

Numerical status

QUALITATIVE ONLY

Touch/verbal support may be described as channel- and context-dependent; no effect magnitude is authorized from the current lock.

2 supporting sources — open details
S027Human experiment · Tier B

The role of touch in regulating inter-partner physiological coupling during empathy for pain

Goldstein et al.

Boundary: Specific pain paradigm

Primary source
C30

Supported interpretation · Moderate-High · PASS

Loneliness, social support and depression can form mutually reinforcing clinical loops, but intervention effects on connection are heterogeneous.

What the map supports

Depression/social withdrawal should be modeled as coupled ecology rather than one-way cause.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Associations and interventions vary by population, quality vs quantity of connection and study design.

Do not convert these associations into one-way causal arrows.

Numerical status

NUMERIC/COUNTS ALLOWEDNL09,NL20

General support-adjustment synthesis: r=.24 [.22,.26], adjusted subset r=.17 [.10,.23]. Loneliness-depression evidence: 88 studies, N=40,068, moderate relation.

2 supporting sources — open details
C31

Formal transfer / frontier · Frontier · PASS WITH BOUNDARY

Active inference offers a formal language for mutual prediction and precision in social interaction, but its distinctive empirical support remains incomplete.

What the map supports

Use to generate predictions about mutual inference, never as settled mechanism.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Many applications are theoretical and may fit multiple frameworks.

No active-inference-specific clinical effect size.

Numerical status

FORMAL/EMPIRICAL BOUNDARYNL21

Active inference may be used as a formal language for mutual prediction/precision, with explicit statement that discriminating empirical support remains incomplete.

2 supporting sources — open details
S154Critical empirical review · Tier A/F

Prediction in action: toward an empirical science of active inference

Lageman, Fahrenfort, Slagter

Boundary: Framework has limited uniquely discriminating empirical tests

Primary source
C32

Supported interpretation + frontier · High within brain / frontier social · PASS

Hierarchical intrinsic neural timescales are a well-supported organizing principle; coupling of timescales between people is a newer frontier.

What the map supports

Ground fast–slow architecture in established neural timescales, then label interpersonal coupling as frontier.

Return to the public explanation

What it does not establish

Social-timescale matching evidence is much newer than within-brain hierarchy evidence.

No effect size for person-to-person timescale matching.

Numerical status

QUALITATIVE + FRONTIERNL22,NL23

Within-brain intrinsic timescale hierarchy is established at review level; interpersonal coupled-timescale account is newer frontier theory.

2 supporting sources — open details
S0992026 Trends review · Tier C

Coupled neural timescales in social interaction

Wolff & Dumas

Boundary: Frontier framework; proposed mechanism not yet established

Primary source

22 CONTRADICTION / OVERCLAIM CHECKS

The most attractive claim is often the one that needs a boundary.

The audit actively challenges clean stories about synchrony, oxytocin, HRV, attachment, social pain, therapeutic alliance, PTSD and network control.

X01Synchrony is evidence of a healthy relationship.

Risk: Synchrony may arise from shared stimuli, coordinated stress or co-dysregulation.

Corrected formulation: Synchrony is a context-dependent coupling measure whose functional meaning must be independently established.

High · OPEN · S020,S022,S023,S026
X02Oxytocin is the trust/love hormone.

Risk: Effects vary with context, person, receptor distribution and threat state.

Corrected formulation: Oxytocin modulates social salience, bonding and stress-related processes in context-dependent ways.

High · PASS · S008,S030,S032,S034,S035
X03Attachment style determines adult psychopathology.

Risk: Most evidence is probabilistic/associational and measurement frameworks vary.

Corrected formulation: Attachment dimensions/representations are risk and regulatory correlates, not destiny.

High · PASS · S001,S002,S003
X04HRV directly measures safety/vagal regulation.

Risk: HRV is multiply determined and interpretation is protocol-dependent.

Corrected formulation: Use HRV as one autonomic index among several, not a direct safety meter.

High · OPEN ·
X05Inter-brain synchrony shows direct brain-to-brain information transfer.

Risk: Common sensory input, movement and analysis choices can produce coupling.

Corrected formulation: Hyperscanning can reveal coordinated signals but directionality and causal transfer require stronger designs.

High · PASS · S018,S022,S025,S026
X06Non-normality/resolvent gain explains relational sensitivity in humans.

Risk: Direct person-level evidence is absent.

Corrected formulation: Use non-normality as formal transfer generating testable hypotheses about transient amplification.

Critical · PASS · S058,S059
X07Controllability metrics tell us how to move a person between psychological states.

Risk: Linear structural control theory abstracts heavily from lived systems.

Corrected formulation: Use controllability only as a formal language for reachability and energy; no clinical control prescription.

Critical · PASS · S060
X08Therapeutic alliance is proven to be the causal mechanism of psychotherapy.

Risk: Alliance correlates with outcome but causal decomposition is difficult.

Corrected formulation: Alliance is a robust process variable that may mark and contribute to change, depending on treatment and context.

High · OPEN · S020,S043,S046,S047
X09Social support is always protective.

Risk: Support quality, fit and interpersonal dynamics matter; symptoms may erode support.

Corrected formulation: Describe reciprocal, context-sensitive buffering and feedback.

High · OPEN · S012,S029,S039,S041
X10Polyvagal theory provides a settled map of social safety.

Risk: Several broad claims remain contested and are often overextended in public discourse.

Corrected formulation: Use basic autonomic anatomy and validated measures; audit polyvagal-specific claims separately.

High · OPEN ·
X11PTSD and social support reciprocally cause changes in each other.

Risk: Cross-lag meta-analysis supports reciprocity, but re-meta-analysis shows model-dependent potentially spurious prospective effects.

Corrected formulation: State robust association and plausible reciprocal dynamics; label directional causality contested.

Critical · PASS WITH CONFLICT · S074,S075,S076
X12More therapist-client nonverbal synchrony means a better alliance/outcome.

Risk: 2024 meta-analysis found no significant overall association; effects differ by modality.

Corrected formulation: Treat synchrony as multidimensional and context-specific, not a monotonic therapeutic good.

High · PASS · S072,S073
X13Social interaction reliably raises endogenous oxytocin.

Risk: Meta-analysis found no expected overall hormonal response in causal designs.

Corrected formulation: Oxytocin-sociality effects are heterogeneous and method-sensitive.

High · PASS · S086
X14LF HRV is sympathetic tone and LF/HF is sympathovagal balance.

Risk: Critical review and modern guidelines reject these simple interpretations.

Corrected formulation: Do not use LF/HF as a direct balance index.

Critical · PASS · S080,S081
X15HRV is a direct measure of felt safety.

Risk: HRV is influenced by respiration, posture, fitness, age, recording method and multiple autonomic processes.

Corrected formulation: Treat vmHRV/RMSSD as constrained cardiac autonomic indicators, not phenomenological safety meters.

Critical · PASS · S079,S081,S082
X16Polyvagal theory is a settled neurophysiological model of trauma and social safety.

Risk: Current 2025 proponent reviews coexist with a 2026 multi-expert critique rejecting major tenets.

Corrected formulation: Present PVT as contested; build core autonomic account from broader physiology.

Critical · PASS · S083,S084,S085
X17Therapeutic alliance causes good outcomes.

Risk: Large meta-analytic association is robust, but directionality, common factors and patient/therapist contributions remain unresolved.

Corrected formulation: Alliance is a strong process marker/candidate mechanism, not a proven singular cause.

High · PASS · S066,S067,S071
X18Social rejection is simply the same neural 'pain matrix' as physical pain.

Risk: Meta-analyses disagree with a literal one-to-one mapping and highlight distributed/default/social-cognitive networks.

Corrected formulation: Use overlap language cautiously; rejection is not reducible to nociceptive pain.

High · PASS · S122,S123,S124,S129,S130
X19The presence of another person is sufficient to buffer pain or stress.

Risk: Pain meta-analysis finds mere presence often insufficient; channel, relationship and appraisal matter.

Corrected formulation: Specify who, how, when and through which channel support acts.

High · PASS · S139,S140,S111
X20Mu-opioid signalling is necessary for human social connection.

Risk: Antagonism produces only a modest average reduction; connectedness remains robust under blockade.

Corrected formulation: Describe mu-opioids as modulators, not the substrate of connection itself.

High · PASS · S131,S134,S135
X21Loneliness is primarily a stable trait or a simple absence of contact.

Risk: EMA and longitudinal work show within-person fluctuations, reciprocal rejection coupling and quality/quantity distinctions.

Corrected formulation: Treat loneliness as dynamic, relational and multiscale.

High · PASS · S113,S115,S117,S151
X22Increasing social contact necessarily reduces loneliness and improves depression.

Risk: Intervention meta-analyses show differential effects for objective contact, perceived quality and depression; heterogeneity is substantial.

Corrected formulation: Separate access, quality, appraisal, belonging and symptom change.

High · PASS · S114,S121,S151

BORROWED GAIN GEOMETRY · BGG

A Flow Hijacked hypothesis that must let a simpler model win.

BGG is a formal Flow Hijacked synthesis and falsifiable research program. It is not an established clinical mechanism, therapeutic law, measured person-to-person operator or proof that one person can control another nervous system.

Relational non-normality, resolvent norm, resolvent gain and barrier height are formal transfers and hypotheses: these quantities have not been empirically estimated between people here.

  1. M0Input-only differences with shared dynamics
  2. M1Starting state, baseline, noise or observation differences
  3. M2State-dependent gain or operating-point differences
  4. M3Context-dependent operator or coupling differences
  5. M4Time-varying or delayed coupled dynamics
Formal specification ↗Methods and falsification criteria ↗

INSPECTABLE DATA

The locked evidence state—not an earlier acquisition count.

01Claim-level Evidence Map · CSV02Claim-level Evidence Map · JSON03166-source landmark spine04360-source included corpus0524 pivotal numerical locks0632-claim numerical gate0722-check contradiction audit08Numerical Locked Evidence System · XLSX09Methods and BGG specification10Flow Hijacked concept edges

The acquisition-stage archive is retained only for provenance and is not exposed here as an authority. The locked system contains 360 included sources, with a 166-source landmark spine.