[DSRP Evidence](https://dsrpevidence.org/)

# KOSMOS Systems Auditor Report: DSRP Model

Projecting human mental categories onto nature itself

## Details

**Authors** Clinton Alden

**Year** 2025

**Publisher** KOSMOS Framework (Substack)

**Kind of work** blog

**Discipline** Systems Science

**Reading level** intermediate

**Kind of engagement** scholarly

**Applied** false

[Read it](https://kosmosframework.substack.com/p/kosmos-systems-auditor-report-dsrp)

## In authors' words

### What they set out to do (purpose)

A self-published critique of DSRP, posted 29 October 2025 and dated as an assessment on 28 October, alleging that DSRP projects human cognitive categories onto nature and presents the projection as natural law.

### How they did it (methods)

An assessment using the author's 7ES framework and three numerical scores labeled FDP, OCF and DQD. The report does not establish a measurement procedure, independent validation or a test of DSRP's stated structural definitions. Its argument relies chiefly on assertions about what natural phenomena cannot consciously do, alongside claims about the institutions associated with DSRP.

### What they found (results)

The report scores DSRP 3.4/10 and argues that it commits a category error, projecting observer-dependent mental categories onto nature, which Alden calls 'cognitive imperialism.' It also describes DSRP's response to criticism as more religious than scientific.

## Commentary

### In short

Alden audits DSRP against his own 'Fundamental Design Principles' framework and argues against its claim that the four patterns are universal features of nature, not just of cognition.

### In more detail

The report presents "numerical" scores and an assessment format, but its decisive argument changes the meaning of the theory it claims to assess. DSRP specifies distinctions as identity–other, systems as part–whole, relationships as action–reaction and perspectives as point–view. Alden instead asks whether electrons distinguish themselves, ecosystems systematize themselves, forces relate in a human sense and photosynthesis takes a conscious viewpoint. The report offers no structural counterexample showing that one of the specified patterns is absent from a relevant natural organization, and no method for determining whether a pattern disappears when no human observes it. Its additional claims about priesthood, gatekeeping, dishonesty and market motives do not test the theory.

### Response

This is a strawman at the level of the theory's basic terms. DSRP's claim that a distinction has identity and other does not require an electron to recognize that it is an electron. A part–whole structure does not require an ecosystem to perform the mental act of ``systematizing.'' Physical interactions do not cease to have relational structure because forces cannot use the verb ``relate.'' A point–view structure does not, by definition, require photosynthesis to possess consciousness. Alden supplies those psychological requirements himself and then announces that nature fails to meet them. His slogan that ``minds use DSRP patterns, so nature uses DSRP patterns'' is likewise his reconstruction of the argument, not a demonstration against DSRP's published structural claim. Observer-dependence is a legitimate issue to investigate: one can ask which boundaries depend on a specified observer or purpose, whether an independent description preserves the proposed structure, and what observation would falsify universality. The report does none of that. It calls its own assertion that patterns disappear without minds an ``empirical test,'' while providing neither a test nor evidence of disappearance. The unexplained precision of its scores compounds the problem: numbers such as 0.67 and 0.74 give an impression of measurement without showing how the underlying claims were measured. The priesthood analogy and accusations about motives then shift attention from the missing structural argument to the people associated with the theory. Given how plainly the published account defines the four patterns and their elements, the repeated substitution of conscious acts for structural relations raises a serious question about whether the account was read closely enough to audit it. A forceful critique would identify a natural organization that DSRP cannot describe, or a DSRP prediction that fails. This report instead defeats a theory of electrons thinking, ecosystems choosing to group themselves and plants holding opinions—a theory DSRP does not propose.

**Patterns it shows** D, S, R, P

**Added** 2026-09-26

**How to cite this** Clinton Alden (2025). KOSMOS Systems Auditor Report: DSRP Model: Projecting human mental categories onto nature itself. KOSMOS Framework (Substack).