CONTENTS

2) WHAT ARE THEY AND WHAT ARE THEY FOR?. 4

3) FOCUS AND SCOPE (WHAT THEY EXAMINE, WHEN, AND WHO USES THEM) 5

4) QUICK OVERVIEW... 6

5) HYPOTHESIS OF CHANGE AND INITIAL DESIGN.. 6

6) WHAT WILL BE UNDERSTOOD AS A “CYCLE” IN THIS PROCEDURE?. 14

7) THE THREE “VALIDITY CRITERIA” (PLAIN DEFINITION + HOW IT LOOKS + EXAMPLES) 16

7.1. CRITERION: “INTER-LEVEL COHERENCE”. 16

7.2. CRITERION: “RELATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS”. 23

7.3. CRITERION: “RELATIONAL JUSTICE”. 28

8) STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURE (WITH GUIDING QUESTIONS) 33

9) VALIDATION MATRIX. 35

10) THREE COMPLETE EXAMPLE CASES (PRACTICAL APPLICATION) 38

10.1. CASE A — SCHOOL (COEXISTENCE AND FAMILY) 38

10.2. CASE B — NEIGHBORHOOD (PUBLIC SPACE). 40

10.3. CASE C — WORK ORGANIZATION (TEAM CLIMATE AND CARE) 43

11) GENERAL CONCLUSION.. 45

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE. 46

1) GENERALITIES

In the TCCR, the “Internal Validity Criteria” are the standards of epistemic quality derived from the theoretical framework itself (object, ontology, and analytical logic of the TCCR) and serve to determine whether a professional reading/intervention is appropriate and valuable within the cognosystemic paradigm, without relying on imported frameworks.

GENERAL OBJECTIVE OF THE CRITERIA

Ensure that every reading, decision, and intervention carried out within the TCCR maintains theoretical-practical integrity—aligning the formal object with the Cognosystem at the micro–meso–macro levels—and generates accumulative endogenous knowledge through traceability (Data → Meaning → Decision → Effect), evaluation with the matrix, and documented loop closures.

1.1. In practical terms, the three proposed criteria entail:

Inter-level Coherence: that the diagnosis and decisions “fit” across micro, meso, and macro (narratives and evidence do not contradict one another and mutually support each other).

Relational Effectiveness: that the architecture of relationships changes for the better (trust, coordination, recognition, conflict resolution).

Relational Justice: that the distribution of voice, power, and recognition improves (narrative and procedural equity).

1.2. How should they be evaluated?

· Through interpretive traceability (from data to meaning and to decision), evidence of inter-level alignment, and observable/replicable relational effects in comparable contexts.

2) WHAT ARE THEY AND WHAT ARE THEY FOR?

The Internal Validity Criteria are the quality standards which, based on the theoretical framework of the TCCR, are proposed to evaluate whether a diagnosis, a decision, or an intervention is properly carried out within the scope of this paradigm. They serve to:

Give meaning: ensure that what is interpreted from a situation aligns with how the TCCR understands reality (narrative, relational, and multiscalar).

Make better decisions: select actions with a higher probability of improving relationships and outcomes.

Accumulate endogenous knowledge: document what has been learned so that it can be transferred to comparable contexts, without relying on external frameworks.

Put simply: these criteria are the quality control of the TCCR. If a reading/intervention meets them, it can then be affirmed that it is valid within the theory. This also seeks to take a further step toward enhancing the credibility of Social Work as a social and human science, by proposing a robust, coherent, and consistent methodology for the epistemological validation of itself.

3) FOCUS AND SCOPE (WHAT THEY EXAMINE, WHEN, AND WHO USES THEM)

What these criteria examine: the circulation of cognosystemic meaning and its effects on the relationships among individuals, mechanisms, and institutions.

Levels addressed: micro (interactions), meso (mechanisms and institutions), and macro (sociocultural and normative frameworks).

3.1. When to use them:

Before (design stage): to select strategies.

During (monitoring stage): to make timely adjustments.

After (evaluation stage): to verify effects and extract lessons.

Who can use them: professionals, teams, and students of Social Work who intervene or conduct research from within the TCCR.

4) QUICK OVERVIEW

Cognosystemic delimitation: who, where, what relationships, what rules? (micro–meso–macro).

Formulate the narrative issue/problem: how is the issue/problem narrated and who narrates it?

Gather evidence by level: records, interviews, minutes, regulations, metrics.

Interpretive traceability: documents that show: Data → Meaning → Decision → Effect.

Apply the three criteria with observable indicators in the Validation Matrix.

Adjust and close with transferable lessons.

5) HYPOTHESIS OF CHANGE AND INITIAL DESIGN

The formulation of the Hypothesis of Change translates the early cognosystemic reading (delimitation, narrative issue, evidence, and Meaning Circulation Map MCM – version 1) into a verifiable proposition that aligns micro–meso–macro through Mediation Bridges (MB), the Cognosystemic Decision Chain (CDC), and equivalent indicators (ICOR/VIRE).

5.0. Mini-operational glossary (quick reading)

MCM (Meaning Circulation Map): a cognosystemic diagram that maps, across micro–meso–macro levels, key narratives and meaning flows (direction and intensity) among actors; identifies frictions and couplings and verifies Semantic, Pragmatic, and Evaluative Fit.

MB (Mediation Bridge): narrative/procedural device that translates and stabilizes agreements between levels (e.g., protocol, opening script, public minutes, monitoring board, normative adjustment), specifying those responsible and the conditions of use.

CDC (Cognosystemic Decision Chain): sequence Data → Meaning → Decision → Effect by level, with responsible parties and supporting evidence; it ensures traceability and prevents performatism.

ICOR/VIRE: ICOR = equivalent indicators of coordination/relational effectiveness; VIRE = indicators of voice, influence, and equitable rules (relational/procedural justice). They are measured with equivalent instruments by level and a documented baseline.

Referral note: For extended definitions, examples, and templates of the MCM, MB, CDC, and indicators, see section “7.1.4. Cognosystemic Instruments for Verifying Coherence.” This synthesis allows the hypothesis to be formulated at this stage; the technical details can be consulted when designing or adjusting the cycle.

5.1. Location and function

Location within the procedure: it takes place after delimiting actors/rules by level, formulating the narrative issue, and establishing a minimal baseline by level.

Function: to transform “data → meaning → decision” into a single hypothesis (per case or program) and a bounded initial design that makes it possible to verify, in a first cycle, whether the proposed mechanism generates changes in Inter-level Coherence, Relational Effectiveness (ICOR indicators), and Relational Justice (VIRE indicators).

Relation to criteria: the hypothesis is the semantic anchor of the Inter-level Coherence criterion; its initial design prevents performatism (empty rituals) within the Relational Effectiveness criterion and establishes procedural safeguards for the Relational Justice criterion.

5.2. Minimum prior inputs

Cognosystemic delimitation (actors, rules, resources by level).

Single narrative issue/problem (1–2 lines).

Evidence by level (folder with citable sources and a brief baseline).

MCM v1 with identified frictions and couplings.

Draft of feasible MBs (documentary, human, technological, ritual).

Without these inputs, the hypothesis risks being vague (semantically), unfeasible (pragmatically), and lacking equivalent measurement (evaluatively).

5.3. How to formulate the hypothesis (operational algorithm in 6 steps)

Step 1 — Relational narrative mechanism: State the “why” of the problem as a mechanism (e.g., norm–practice misalignment; meso-level translation deficit; asymmetries of voice/procedure).

Step 2 — Translation levers: Identify concrete MBs and the level(s) where they will operate (micro/meso/macro), as well as who is responsible.

Step 3 — Standard format drafting: Use the suggested structure:

If [MB/device + responsible actor + level + mode of use] then [expected change in ICOR/VIRE and/or in Inter-level Coherence] because [change mechanism linking the MB to the problem], measured by [equivalent indicators by level with thresholds], within [reasonable timeframe of one cycle].

Step 4 — 3F Check (cognosystemic fit).

· Semantic Fit: the name of the problem and the hypothesis coincide across the three levels.

· Pragmatic Fit: there are rules/resources/roles that allow the implementation of the MBs.

· Evaluative Fit: the indicators measure the same construct at each level.

Step 5 — CDC v1 by level: Document, in one line per level, the Chain Data → Meaning → Decision → Effect associated with the hypothesis (which data supports the meaning; which decision is taken; which effect is sought).

Step 6 — Null Hypothesis: State the counterfactual: “The implementation of [MB] will not produce significant changes in [indicators/constructs] within the defined timeframe.”

Note: A complete example of a hypothesis can be found in the criterion “Inter-level Coherence”, which can be used as a pattern for terminological calibration and the required degree of specificity.

5.4. What constitutes a good hypothesis (quality criteria)

Uniqueness and focus: a single hypothesis per case/program and per cycle (avoid multiple objectives).

Falsifiability and measurement: states indicators, thresholds, and timeframe (before–during–after) and allows for refutation.

Inter-level alignment (3F): same semantics; pragmatic feasibility (MBs and roles defined); equivalent indicators across levels.

Parsimony: few levers, well chosen (1–2 core MBs).

Realistic temporalization: timeframe consistent with the typical duration of the first cycle in the given context (school, neighborhood, hospital, organization).

Full traceability: clear CDC by level and supporting materials (minutes, scripts, forms).

Procedural ethics: safeguards the voice/influence of relevant actors (VIRE) and defines public feedback mechanisms.

Minimum stability: sustained throughout the cycle; if it changes, the reasons are documented.

5.5. Drafting templates

Template A — Standard

If [MB/device] is implemented in [mode/rhythm] by [responsible party] at [level], then [expected change in ICOR/VIRE and/or Inter-level Coherence] because [mechanism], measured by [list of equivalent indicators by level with thresholds] within [timeframe].

Template B — Multilevel (with explicit fit)

If [micro-level MB] + [meso-level MB] are implemented in a coordinated manner, then [Semantic/Pragmatic/Evaluative Fit] will increase and [ICOR/VIRE] will improve, measured by [micro/meso/macro indicators], within [timeframe].

Null Hypothesis

The implementation of [MB] and [dissemination/normative adjustment] will not modify [indicators] within [timeframe].

5.6. From statement to initial design

With the hypothesis drafted, specify a minimum viable initial design:

Mediation Bridges (MB): describe 1–2 MBs with responsible parties, materials, and rules of use/obligation.

Narrative devices and cognosystemic memes: scripts, protocols, public minutes, brief slogans that establish common language.

Roles and resources: who does what, with what timelines and supports.

Schedule and milestones: sessions/rituals, dates for mid-term measurement and closure.

Equivalent indicators by level (3–5): define construct → indicator → source → threshold.

Risks and assumptions: e.g., actor turnover, regulatory changes, overload. Include a mitigation plan.

CDC v1 by level: attach a table with Data → Meaning → Decision → Effect.

MCM v1.1: update the map indicating where the MBs operate and where effects are expected to be observed.

5.7. 3F Checklist (before implementation)

Is the name of the problem and the hypothesis identical across micro–meso–macro?

Are there rules/roles/resources that enable the MBs?

Do the indicators measure the same construct at each level and have a baseline?

Is the CDC written by level (one line each)?

Have timeframe and thresholds been defined for the first cycle?

Are formats (script, minutes, monitoring board) ready to use?

Has public feedback and recordkeeping for audit been planned?

Have risks been identified and is it clear who will act if they occur?

Does the hypothesis respect the voice/influence of relevant actors (VIRE)?

5.8. Possible errors and how to correct them

Vague semantics: terms such as “improve coexistence” without a mechanism → Rewrite with a relational narrative cause and explicit MBs.

Bridge without real use: “on paper” protocol → Simplify, provide training, audit usage, and establish mandatory application.

Incongruent indicators: measuring satisfaction when the construct is coordination → Realign construct and indicator.

Goals without baseline: arbitrary thresholds → Establish at least a minimal baseline.

Multi-objective hypothesis: too many levers → Select 1–2 core MBs.

Performatism: ritual without observable effect → Link each MB to an indicator and to a meso-level decision.

Dependence on “heroes”: results tied to one person → Institutionalize roles and monitoring boards, and always connect them to cognosystemic narrative systems.

Paper alignment: coherent documents, incoherent practices → Conduct on-site observation + incentives/follow-up.

5.9. Synthetic example (cross-reference)

· School Case (summary): macro→micro translation deficit in meetings; MB1–MB3 (protocol, opening script, public minutes) + dissemination of regulation; hypothesis: if these MBs are implemented systematically and in a standardized way, then inter-level coherence will increase and ICOR/VIRE will improve, measured within 4–6 weeks by attendance, agreements, interruptions, trust, and complaints. (See full development in the Inter-level Coherence criterion, in section 7).

5.10. Minimum evidence required to advance to “cycle”

Hypothesis signed by the team (version and date).

MBs described with ready-to-use materials (prototypes).

MCM v1.1 updated with points of action/effect.

CDC v1 by level and a measurement plan (indicators + targets + schedule).

Plan for feedback and procedural ethical safeguards (VIRE).

With these elements, the first cycle can begin: it is executed, Data → Meaning → Decision → Effect is recorded, it is evaluated using the Validation Matrix with the “strong-minimum” rule, and it is adjusted or scaled according to the results.

6) WHAT WILL BE UNDERSTOOD AS A “CYCLE” IN THIS PROCEDURE?

For this procedure, a “cycle” will be understood as a complete unit of work that begins with a hypothesis and an initial design and concludes with the measurement of effects and the adjustment of the intervention. It is not merely a period of time: it is a verifiable process with defined milestones and minimum deliverables.

6.1. Operational definition

A cycle is established when, for a given case/program, the following 8 milestones are completed:

Cognosystemic delimitation (micro–meso–macro) and the narrative problem are carried out.

Baseline is established (evidence by level).

Meaning is formulated (Data → Meaning) and a hypothesis of change is drafted.

At least one “Mediation Bridge” (MB) and/or narrative device is designed and implemented.

Equivalent indicators by level are set and monitoring is conducted.

The “Cognosystemic Decision Chain” (CDC) is documented: Data → Meaning → Decision → Effect at each level.

The “Validation Matrix” (VM) is applied (coherence – effectiveness – justice vs. traceability – alignment – indicators – observable effects) with the “strong-minimum” rule or an alternative.

Closure and adjustment: transferable lessons are recorded and, if appropriate, the hypothesis is redefined for the next cycle.

6.2. Quality criteria of a cycle

Complete traceability (there is evidence of Data → Meaning → Decision → Effect).

MBs in real use (not only “on paper”).

Indicators measured before–during–after at ≥2 levels.

Observable effects (improvements or learnings that lead to adjustment).

Suggested practical rule: target ≥2 consecutive cycles in order to affirm the stability of coherence, effectiveness, and justice.

6.3. Duration and nesting

The duration depends on the context (school, neighborhood, hospital, etc.). Cycles may be nested: shorter at the micro level, intermediate at the meso level, and longer at the macro level. What matters is not the calendar, but completing the 8 milestones with evidence.

6.4. Cycle closure signals

Indicator targets reached or the gap clearly characterized.

Validation Matrix applied and adjustment decision taken.

Lessons and transferability recorded.

6.5. Quick example

· School: “opening script” + “public minutes” (MB), indicators of attendance/trust/agreements; after 8 weeks, the matrix and adjustments are applied. Cycle 1 is closed → the protocol is adjusted and Cycle 2 begins to consolidate participation and relational justice.

7) THE THREE “VALIDITY CRITERIA” (PLAIN DEFINITION + HOW IT LOOKS + EXAMPLES)

7.1. CRITERION: “INTER-LEVEL COHERENCE”

Definition: it is the narrative coupling among the three levels of the Cognosystem (micro–meso–macro). A reading/intervention is coherent when the same problem and the same hypothesis of change remain recognizable at each level, without hermeneutical leaps or contradictions. In essence, it ensures that the same definition of the problem and the same hypothesis of change remain recognizable and operable at the micro, meso, and macro levels.

7.1.1. Objective of the criterion

· To ensure narrative and operational coupling across micro–meso–macro, to prevent hermeneutical leaps, and to design/activate “Mediation Bridges” (MB) that translate local agreements into rules/practices; to align equivalent indicators at each level and to sustain semantic, pragmatic, and evaluative consistency across at least two cycles.

7.1.2. What does this criterion guarantee?

Inter-level Coherence is the ecosystemic control mechanism of the TCCR. It does not demand that reality “be coherent” (it often is not); rather, it requires that professional intervention:

Detect divergences across micro–meso–macro, using the “Meaning Circulation Map” (MCM).

Translate them through “Mediation Bridges” (MB).

Document their traceability with the “Cognosystemic Decision Chain” (CDC): Data → Meaning → Decision → Effect.

Manage them until an operational fit among levels is achieved.

In this way, it guarantees that action takes place within the TCCR paradigm (multilevel, narrative-relational), even if the case begins misaligned.

7.1.3. The three components of the cognosystemic fit (3F)

The Three Fits, or 3F, are operational subcriteria of validity for the Inter-level Coherence criterion. They serve as a kind of epistemological and operational consistency check carried out immediately after defining the problem and the hypothesis of change. Their function is to operationalize the inter-level coherence of the TCCR.

Semantic fit: the way the problem and the hypothesis are named coincides across levels.

Pragmatic fit: the rules, resources, and roles at the meso level enable what was agreed upon at the micro level to occur; macro frameworks do not block or contradict those rules.

Evaluative fit: the indicators measure the same construct at each level (what is promised in discourse is observed as practice and recorded as outcome).

These fits should be understood as a quick test performed immediately after defining the problem and the hypothesis of change. First, it is verified that all parties are talking about the same thing (the same name for the problem and hypothesis at micro–meso–macro). Then it is checked that the means exist to put this into practice: rules, resources, roles, and Mediation Bridges (MB) that translate agreements. Finally, it is ensured that the same construct will be measured at each level, with equivalent indicators. If something does not align, it will be known beforehand where to adjust: words (semantic), devices (pragmatic), or metrics (evaluative).

7.1.4. Cognosystemic instruments for verifying coherence

MEANING CIRCULATION MAP (MCM): diagram that represents nodes by level (micro ⇆ meso ⇆ macro), key narratives (how the problem is named at each level), and flows of cognosystemic meaning[1] with direction/thickness (who influences whom and with what intensity). It includes friction points and coupling points. It is used to verify semantic, pragmatic, and evaluative fit and is updated at each stage of the intervention (design, midpoint, and closure).

MEDIATION BRIDGES (MB): devices that translate local agreements into broader-scale rules and practices. They may be documentary (protocols, minutes, formats), human (liaison roles, committees), technological (dashboards, forms), or ritual (openings, public feedback). Criteria: clarity, obligatoriness, accessibility, and traceability (Data → Meaning → Decision → Effect). Example: a reception script that brings a macro-level rule into micro-level interaction; a protocol of agreements that requires incorporating micro-level decisions into the meso-level institutional agenda.

COGNOSYSTEMIC DECISION CHAIN (CDC): Data → Meaning → Decision → Effect, documented at each level. This refers to:

o Data: verifiable records that describe what occurred. Examples: micro (verbatim quotes, observation), meso (minutes, forms, logs), macro (regulations, guidelines, statistics).

o Meaning: TCCR interpretation of the data (problem/hypothesis of change framed in relational and narrative terms). Written briefly, with reference to the Meaning Circulation Map (MCM) and the level where it arises.

o Decision: what will be done differently, where it is formalized (e.g., protocol/agenda/role), and which “Mediation Bridge” (MB) enables it. Includes those responsible and the timeframe.

o Effect: observable changes in relationships and outcomes. These are tested with indicators from the corresponding criterion (ICOR for effectiveness, VIRE for justice—see subsequent criteria) or others defined.

· Methodological rules for use: (1) one line for each level (micro/meso/macro); (2) do not skip steps or invert the order; (3) version and date each entry; (4) close the loop: the effect feeds back into the meaning and the next decision.

7.1.5. Practical complete example (school case)

Initial description: An educational community, under the ministerial guidelines for school participation (macro level), shows a norm–practice gap: meetings are interrupted, agreements are diluted, and information circulates irregularly. At the meso level, the Management Team translates the regulation through three Mediation Bridges (MB): MB1 = “Meeting Protocol” (rules and roles); MB2 = “Opening Script” (order of speech and clear language); and MB3 = “Public Minutes” (record and traceability). The circulation of meaning descends from macro→meso→micro (teachers, students, parents/guardians) mainly through MB2, while feedback and compliance with agreements ascend from micro→meso via MB3; nevertheless, frictions persist micro→meso due to expectations, participation, and information. The CDC by level summarizes that: (i) at the micro level, applying MB2 reduces interruptions and organizes participation; (ii) at the meso level, combining MB1+MB3 improves coordination and the traceability of agreements; (iii) at the macro level, “clear dissemination of the regulation” increases adherence. Short-term goals are set at attendance and agreements ≥75%, trust ≥3.5/5, and complaints ≤2/month, with public monitoring through MB3.

Central hypothesis (explanatory–operational): The norm–practice misalignment in the school—evidenced by interruptions in meetings, low traceability of agreements, and frictions over expectations, participation, and information—is mainly due to a deficient translation of the macro-level regulation to the micro level; therefore, if the Management Team systematically and in a standardized way implements the Mediation Bridges (MB1: Meeting Protocol, MB2: Opening Script, MB3: Public Minutes) together with clear dissemination of the guidelines (macro), then inter-level coherence will increase and relational effectiveness and relational justice (ICOR/VIRE) will improve, with verifiable improvements over the baseline observed within 4–6 weeks: attendance ≥75%, agreements fulfilled ≥75%, ≥40% reduction in interruptions per meeting, trust ≥3.5/5, and complaints ≤2/month.

Null hypothesis: The implementation of MB1–MB3 and the dissemination of the regulation will not produce significant changes in these indicators.

GRAPHICAL EXAMPLE OF INSTRUMENTS

“MEANING CIRCULATION MAP (MCM)” WITH “MEDIATION BRIDGES (MB 1, 2, AND 3)” + “COGNOSYSTEMIC DECISION CHAIN (CDC)” INTEGRATED

7.1.6. Signs of good practice

Clarity in instruments: single hypothesis per case, explicit MCM and MBs, traceability log by level.

Loop closure: what is decided at the meso level returns to the micro level as practice, and is reported to the macro level when appropriate.

7.1.7. Warning signs

Micro tunnel (only clinical) / macro tunnel (rhetoric without implementation).

Lost translation: micro-level agreements that are not turned into meso-level rules.

Meso inertia: protocols that are dictated but not used.

Apparent alignment: indicators that improve at one level while deteriorating at another.

7.1.8. Suggested indicators

% of micro-level agreements formalized in meso-level documents/agenda.

% of meso-level decisions that cite micro-level evidence and align with macro-level guidelines.

Discursive concordance (content analysis) among micro minutes, meso protocols, and macro regulations.

Temporal consistency: the hypothesis remains stable throughout the intervention cycle.

7.1.9. Five-step procedure

Delimit actors/rules by level.

Draft a hypothesis of change in terms of meaning/relationships.

Design MBs (e.g., protocol, form, committee) that translate micro→meso and meso→macro.

Set equivalent indicators by level.

Record the CDC during implementation and adjust if dissonances appear.

7.1.10. How to score this criterion (0–4)

0: contradictory hypotheses across levels; no MCM/MB; no evidence.
1: similar hypothesis but without mediations or aligned measures.
2: MCM/MB exist, but indicators are uneven or dissonances persist.
3: MCM/MB in operation and most indicators aligned.
4: complete and stable fit; documented loop closures; transferable lessons.

7.1.11. Advanced errors and how to correct them

Semantic contradiction (e.g., “autonomy” at micro vs. “control” at meso) → Redraft the hypothesis and adjust the MB.

Defective bridge (protocol not used) → Simplify the device, provide training, and audit its use.

Paper alignment (documents aligned, practices not) → On-site observation and correction of incentives.

Temporal mismatch (macro changes and creates disorder) → Re-anchor the hypothesis and update MBs and indicators.

7.2. CRITERION: “RELATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS”

Definition: the capacity of an intervention to favorably reconfigure the relational architecture that sustains the problem/goal (trust, coordination, recognition, conflict resolution/governance). The focus is not on momentary satisfaction, but on sustainable changes in patterns of interaction and in the rules that enable them.

7.2.1. Objective of the criterion

· To ensure the production and maintenance of verifiable improvements in the relational architecture—ICOR: integrity/trust, coordination, recognition, and conflict resolution—through the design, implementation, and auditing of narrative devices and institutional arrangements; to measure with baseline, monitoring, and evaluation (before–during–after), and to systematize transferable lessons.

7.2.2. What does this criterion guarantee?

Relational Effectiveness is the mechanism of relational change control within the TCCR. It does not demand immediate “spectacular results”; rather, it requires that professional intervention produce and stabilize verifiable improvements in the relational architecture through devices and rules that endure. The aim is to:

Diagnose where the blockage lies (ICOR: integrity/trust, coordination, recognition, conflict resolution).

Ensure the design of Mediation Bridges (MBs) (protocols, roles, dashboards, rituals) and equivalent metrics at each level to move that blockage and verify change.

If improvement occurs at the micro level but not at the meso level, the improvement is fragile. The failure must be classified (e.g., coordination) and addressed at the meso level with MBs and metrics; alignment with the macro level should follow if regulations are present.

7.2.3. Key dimensions (ICOR)[2]

Integrity/trust: predictability, fulfillment of commitments, care for one’s word.

Coordination: alignment of tasks, timelines, roles, and information.

Recognition: dignified treatment, legitimacy of voice and contribution.

Conflict resolution: existence and use of mechanisms for negotiation and repair.

7.2.4. Cognosystemic mechanisms

Narrative devices: rituals, scripts, protocols, public minutes.

Cognosystemic memes: short statements/practices that establish common language (e.g., “clear agreement, clear respect”).

Institutional arrangements: agendas, committees, liaison roles, decision boards.

7.2.5. Suggested indicators (choose 3–5 depending on the case)

Short surveys on trust/collaboration (Likert scale 1–5) before/after.

Density and reciprocity of the network (quick link matrix).

Coordination times (cycle from agreement to execution).

Fulfillment of agreements (% and timelines).

Critical incidents: number and severity of conflicts, avoided escalations.

Recognition: analysis of minutes to verify inclusion of voices and attribution of credit.

7.2.6. Five-step procedure

Identify critical relationships (which connections sustain the problem?).

Design devices and cognosystemic memes that modulate those relationships.

Define indicators and baseline.

Implement with supervision (logbook/minutes/metrics).

Evaluate and adjust according to ICOR results.

7.2.7. Quick examples

Neighborhood: community table with a 60-minute script and public agreements; indicators: stable attendance, % of agreements fulfilled, decreasing complaints.

Technical team: 5-minute check-in and task log with assigned responsibilities; indicators: compliance, fewer urgent emails, conflicts resolved without escalation.

Interprofessional hospital: referral protocol and “common language” for complex cases; indicators: response times, preventable readmissions, cross-disciplinary appreciation.

Migrant reception: welcome ritual + community translator; indicators: perception of dignified treatment, sustained participation, resolution of procedures without friction.

7.2.8. Minimum sequence

Detect the ICOR deficit and the level at which it manifests.

Design narrative devices/MBs that modulate the interaction.

Establish baseline and indicators by level.

Implement and audit use (logbook/minutes).

Verify effects in ≥2 levels and close the loop or adjust.

7.2.9. Position in relation to the other criteria

Without coherence, effectiveness evaporates (changes are not translated across levels).

Without justice, effectiveness can become extractive (improvement for some at the cost of others), and therefore unsustainable.

7.2.10. Suggested practical rule

Every decision must leave a trace in ≥1 ICOR dimension and in ≥2 levels per cycle.

If after a cycle there is no ICOR improvement, simplify the device or redesign the MB (avoid performatism).

7.2.11. Brief example

· Interprofessional hospital team with high readmission rates: MB = liaison role + referral board + interconsultation script. Indicators: response times, readmissions, cross-disciplinary evaluation. Effect: reduced response times and readmissions; improved recognition among disciplines.

7.2.12. How to score (0–4)

0: no changes in relationships; rituals/protocols nonexistent.
1: devices in place but little use; no improvement in indicators.
2: intermittent use; partial improvements in 1–2 ICOR dimensions.
3: sustained changes in ≥2 dimensions and in ≥2 levels (micro/meso).
4: robust improvement in all 4 ICOR dimensions, with documented transferability.

7.2.13. Advanced errors and how to correct them

Performatism (empty rituals): simplify scripts, provide training, and audit use.

Narrow indicators (only satisfaction): incorporate coordination and conflict metrics.

Dependence on “heroes”: institutionalize roles and boards; distribute responsibilities.

Exclusionary technical language: design shared cognosystemic memes and working glossaries.

7.3. CRITERION: “RELATIONAL JUSTICE”

Definition: the degree to which the Cognosystem redistributes voice, power, and recognition so that individuals and collectives can express themselves and have that expression effectively influence diagnoses and decisions. Relational justice is not merely “participation”; it is participation with consequences and under fair procedures.

7.3.1. Objective of the criterion

· To redistribute voice, influence, and recognition under clear rules (VIRE: Voice, Influence, Recognition, Procedural Equity), leaving traces of influence in diagnoses and decisions; to establish reparative mechanisms (translations, quotas, rotations, committees) and audit their implementation in order to ensure fair procedures.

7.3.2. What does this criterion guarantee?

Relational Justice is the procedural-ethical control mechanism of the TCCR. It does not require that all voices think alike; it requires that all relevant voices can be expressed and that such expression has consequences under clear rules. The aim is to:

Diagnose asymmetries in VIRE (Voice, Influence, Recognition, Procedural Equity).

Ensure the creation of reparative mechanisms (translations, quotas, rotation of spokespersons, committees with authority) and traces of influence in minutes and agendas.

For example, if the micro level makes demands and the macro level ignores them, this is not a “failure”; it is a signal to mediate: to create spaces for voice, document proposals, link them to decisions, and, if appropriate, escalate normative changes through MBs.

7.3.3. Dimensions (VIRE)[3]

Voice: the capacity of individuals and groups to express themselves and be heard in decision-making processes.

Influence: the degree to which expressed voices effectively shape diagnoses, decisions, and outcomes.

Recognition: acknowledgment of the legitimacy, dignity, and contribution of each participant.

Procedural equity: clarity and fairness of the rules that govern participation, ensuring transparency, equal opportunities, and accountability.

7.3.4. Cognosystemic instruments

Voice matrix: who speaks, how much, and at what critical moments.

Rules of the game: turns, time limits, clear language, accessibility.

Cultural/linguistic translations and supports: interpreters, mediators.

Feedback devices: public minutes, summaries in plain language.

Guarantee committees: parity-based, rotating, with corrective authority.

7.3.5. Suggested indicators (select 4–6)

% of decisions that incorporate proposals from previously absent actors.

% of agenda items originated by those actors.

Diversity of sources cited and of signatures in minutes/protocols.

Perception of procedural justice (Likert 1–5).

Response times to complaints and rate of effective remediation.

Persistence of participation (sustained attendance across three cycles).

7.3.6. Five-step procedure

Map asymmetries of voice/power (who names, who is excluded?).

Design reparative measures: rules, translations, and spaces where absent voices can have influence.

Safeguard procedures: committees/minutes/appeal and feedback mechanisms.

Monitor indicators and open brief public audits.

Learn and adjust (correct biases, rotate spokespersons, simplify procedures).

7.3.7. Expanded examples

Youth program: young people co-define topics and evaluation criteria; minutes show which proposal changed which decision; indicators: % of proposals adopted, dropout rates decreasing, procedural justice increasing.

Work organization: safe reporting channel and parity-based committee with decision-making power; indicators: cases resolved, response times, perception of recognition.

Intercultural health: inclusion of a community translator and adaptation of scripts; indicators: comprehension of instructions, adherence, complaints regarding treatment.

School council: reserved seats and rotation of spokespersons for migrant parents; indicators: agenda with topics proposed by them, implemented agreements, sustained attendance.

7.3.8. Minimum sequence

Map who names and who is excluded.

Design rules of the game and supports so that voices have influence.

Safeguard procedures (appeal, feedback, transparency).

Monitor VIRE indicators and open brief audits.

Adjust: rotate spokespersons, simplify procedures, correct biases.

7.3.9. Position in relation to the other criteria

Without justice, coherence can legitimize exclusions; without justice, effectiveness may be sustained at unacceptable ethical costs.

With justice, changes gain legitimacy and stability.

7.3.10. Practical rule

If a voice enters and leaves no trace in agendas/minutes/decisions, relational justice is scored “0” for that cycle.

7.3.11. Brief example

· School council: previously, decisions were made by two leaders. Reparative measures: reserved seats, rotation of spokespersons, summaries in plain language, and a guarantee committee. Effects: 40% of the agenda from new actors, increased perception of procedural justice, and agreements implemented.

7.3.12. How to score (0–4)

0: nominal participation; no rules or measurable effects.
1: minimal rules in place, but low influence; no improvement in indicators.
2: partial improvements in 1–2 VIRE dimensions.
3: sustained improvements in ≥3 dimensions and in ≥2 levels (micro/meso).
4: robust redistribution with evidence of influence and stable mechanisms.

7.3.13. Advanced errors and how to correct them

Tokenism (listening without consequences) → Link each voice space to mandatory follow-up decisions.

Process capture (same people always speak) → Rotate spokespersons, limit speaking times, and provide supports.

Participation overload → Prioritize critical decisions and use feedback in plain language.

False translation (translating without interpreting) → Co-design glossaries and validate understandings.

Golden rule: everything must be documented with traceability (from raw data to meaning and decision) and with observable effects (what changed in relationships).

8) STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURE (WITH GUIDING QUESTIONS)

Step 1. Cognosystemic delimitation (micro–meso–macro)

Who are the key actors at each level? What rules/resources are there?

Deliverable: actors-and-rules sheet by level + MCM v1 (initial Meaning Circulation Map with frictions and couplings).

Step 2. Narrative issue to be addressed

How does each actor name the issue or problem in question? Who decides the “official” version of it?

Deliverable: comparative synthesis of narratives + single statement of the Narrative Problem (1–2 lines).

Step 3. Evidence

What data support each narrative? (records, interviews, regulations, indicators).

Deliverable: folder by level with citable sources + baseline of equivalent indicators by level (coherence, effectiveness, justice).

Step 4. Hypothesis and design

What change in meaning and in relationships is sought? What narrative device will be used?

Deliverable: brief plan (1–2 pages) with hypothesis of change, defined Mediation Bridges (MB) (documentary/human/technological/ritual), narrative devices (e.g., cognosystemic memes), D→M→D→E Chain v1 by level, targets, responsible parties, schedule, and risks.

Step 5. Implementation

Execute actions and record (logbook, minutes, metrics).

Deliverable: shared field notebook with evidence of real use of MBs (minutes, photos, logs), MCM v2 updated, and compliance audit.

Step 6. Evaluation by criteria

Coherence: does micro–meso–macro fit together?
Effectiveness: did relational indicators improve?
Justice: was there more voice/influence from previously displaced actors?

Deliverable: Validation Matrix complete (see next section “9. Validation Matrix”) with 0–4 scores applying the Strong-Minimum rule, justifications, and probative annexes + adjustment recommendations.

Step 7. Adjustment

What is maintained, what is modified, what is discarded?

Deliverable: adjustment minutes with new hypothesis (if applicable), redesign of MBs, update of indicators/targets, D→M→D→E Chain v2, and plan for the next cycle (dates/milestones).

Step 8. Closure and lessons

What was learned that is useful for similar cases? Under what conditions?

Deliverable: transferability note with contextual conditions, final materials (MBs, templates), and stability record (if ≥2 cycles were completed).

9) VALIDATION MATRIX

Epistemological purpose: The Validation Matrix is the device that operationalizes the cognosystemic internal validity criteria. Its objective is to estimate, based on evidence, the TCCR quality of a psychosocial reading/intervention understood as narrative coupling across levels and as the modification of the relational architecture under fair procedures. Far from a mechanical checklist, it organizes the evaluation into four complementary dimensions—interpretive traceability, micro–meso–macro alignment, pertinent indicators, and observable effects—that jointly allow the weighing of hermeneutical consistency and practical effectiveness.

9.1. MATRIX

Structure and decision logic: Each criterion (coherence, effectiveness, justice) is assessed in light of those four dimensions and scored from 0–4, following the “strong-minimum rule”: the final score is determined by the weakest dimension, safeguarding the integrity of the standard.[4] In comparative analyses or series, a penalized average may be used. The result is an auditable, comparable, and transferable record that enables the endogenous accumulation of knowledge and strengthens disciplinary credibility.

Criterion	Evidence of traceability (Data→Meaning→ Decision→)	*Micro–meso–macro* alignment	Suggested indicators	Observable Effects
Inter-level Coherence	Folder by level + circulation map	Explicit mediation bridges	% of micro agreements formalized at meso; alignment with macro regulation	Fewer contradictions among narratives; temporal consistency
Relational Effectiveness	Plan of devices + usage records	Coordinated changes in rules/practices	trust (1–5); task fulfillment; coordination times	Increase in cooperation; reduction of recurrent conflicts
Relational Justice	Voice procedures + feedback	Inclusion and clear rules of participation	% of decisions with participation by previously absent actors	Increase in agency; greater perception of justice

9.2. Scoring scale (how to use it)

0 – Does not meet: no traceability (there is no Data→Meaning→Decision), no alignment across levels, or no observable effects. E.g., protocols on paper that nobody uses.

1 – Incipient: there is some record of traceability or a pilot of the device, but no clear mediations across levels and no consistent indicators. E.g., a ritual is tried once, with no follow-up.

2 – Partial: Mediation Bridges (MB) exist and some indicators improve at 1–2 levels; dissonances persist or documentation is irregular. E.g., improvement at the micro level, but the meso level does not adjust rules.

3 – Sufficient: full traceability, MCM/MB operating, and sustained improvements in ≥2 levels; indicators aligned with the construct and documented loop closures.

4 – Robust: stable micro–meso–macro fit, improvements in all relevant dimensions, institutionalized mechanisms, transferable lessons, and an audit available.

9.3. Decision rules

Recommended (“strong-minimum”): the score for the criterion is the lowest value observed among: traceability, inter-level alignment, indicators, effects (The weakest link is assessed).

Alternative (penalized average): simple average of the four columns, capped at “1” if any column is “0”.

Minimum evidence by score: 0 = nothing verifiable; 1 = pilot/initial record; 2 = MCM/MB + 2 indicators; 3 = MCM/MB + ≥3 indicators + loop closure; 4 = all of the above + stability across 2 cycles and transferable materials.

9.4. Quick example

If in Inter-level Coherence you have: traceability = 3, alignment = 2, indicators = 3, effects = 2 → score 2 (Partial) under the “strong-minimum” rule.

NOTE FOR PROFESSIONALS:

The “Validation Matrix” functions as a “dashboard” to assess whether the intervention makes sense according to the TCCR paradigm: a) ecosystemic coherence (among micro–meso–macro); b) improvement of relationships (trust, coordination, recognition, conflict management); and c) fair rules in its implementation (voice and influence of those who participate). This tool makes it possible to organize the intervention, justify decisions before professional teams or institutions, and, above all, learn cumulatively.

How is this matrix used in day-to-day practice? Simple: Data → Meaning → Decision → Effect is always recorded. Then, in the matrix, four columns are completed for each criterion: traceability, alignment across levels, selected indicators, and observed effects. A score from 0 to 4 is applied using the suggested “strong-minimum” criterion (the final score is the lowest of those four); this identifies the weak point to be improved. It is recommended to use it before (to design), during (to adjust), and after (to evaluate and extract lessons).

Concrete application, in simple terms: for example, if meetings with families are organized in a school, one can define an opening script and public minutes (decision); measure attendance, agreements fulfilled, and trust (indicators); and observe whether complaints decrease (effect). If, instead, work is carried out in a neighborhood, a community roundtable can be established with clear rules and it can be verified whether more actors propose topics and whether incidents decrease. The matrix does not replace evidence; it contextualizes it relationally and shows, clearly, what works and what must be adjusted.

10) THREE COMPLETE EXAMPLE CASES (PRACTICAL APPLICATION)

10.1. CASE A — SCHOOL (COEXISTENCE AND FAMILY)

10.1.1. Cognosystemic delimitation

Micro: teachers, parents/guardians, students in meetings.
Meso: management team, internal regulations, meeting protocol (MB 1).
Macro: ministerial guidelines for school participation.

10.1.2. Narrative problem

· High frictions and complaints in meetings; agreements are not fulfilled and trust is low.

10.1.3. Baseline evidence (initial line)

· Attendance 55%; agreements fulfilled 40%; average trust 2.3/5; 6 formal complaints/month.

10.1.4. Meaning Circulation Map (MCM)

· Micro ⇆ meso friction due to misaligned expectations; the macro level demands participation without practical translation.

10.1.5. Mediation Bridges (MB)

· MB 1 Meeting protocol (agenda, time limits, roles); MB 2 Opening script with the cognosystemic meme “clear agreement, clear respect”; MB 3 Public minutes on the bulletin board.

10.1.6. Cognosystemic Decision Chain - CDC (by level)

Micro — Data: interruptions and circular discussions; Meaning: misalignment of expectations; Decision: opening script + turns of speech (MB 2); Effect: fewer interruptions.

Meso — Data: agreements not recorded; Meaning: low traceability; Decision: protocol and public minutes (MB 1, MB 3); Effect: increase in fulfilled commitments.

Macro — Data: participation regulation little known; Meaning: norm–practice gap; Decision: clear-language dissemination; Effect: greater adherence to standards.

10.1.7. Indicators and targets

· Attendance ≥75%; agreements fulfilled ≥75%; trust ≥3.5/5; complaints ≤2/month.

10.1.8. Results (8 weeks)

· Attendance 78%; agreements 82%; trust 3.8/5; complaints 2/month (−66%).

10.1.9. Validation Matrix (scores and justification)

Criterion	Traceability (D→M→D→)	Micro–meso–macro alignment	Indicators	Observable effects	Score
Coherence	Complete chain by level + circulation map	MB 1/2/3 in use; macro regulation translated	% of micro agreements formalized at meso; alignment with macro norm	Fewer contradictions among narratives; temporal consistency	3
Effectiveness	Plan of devices + minutes	Coordinated changes in rules and practices	trust; attendance; agreements	↓ complaints; shorter meetings	3
Justice	Speaking turns, public minutes	Inclusion of previously passive parents/guardians	% of topics proposed by families (20%)	Greater perception of fair treatment	2

10.1.10. Lessons

· The documentary MB (public minutes) closes the micro→meso loop; participation needs to be raised to ≥30% to strengthen relational justice.

10.2. CASE B — NEIGHBORHOOD (PUBLIC SPACE)

10.2.1. Cognosystemic delimitation

Micro: residents, shopkeepers, community brigades.
Meso: monthly neighborhood roundtable (MB 1), local police, municipality (operations).
Macro: municipal ordinances on civic coexistence and public safety.

10.2.2. Narrative problem

· Public square with recurrent incidents and uncoordinated actors; voices concentrated in a few leaders.

10.2.3. Baseline evidence (initial line)

· 12 incidents/month; average participation 12 people; 80% of the agenda set by 2 leaders.

10.2.4. Meaning Circulation Map (MCM)

· Micro-level friction due to unmediated conflict; meso-level vacuum of rules; macro level with a poorly operational ordinance.

10.2.5. Mediation Bridges (MB)

· MB 1 Neighborhood roundtable with script and roles; MB 2 Co-designed patrols; MB 3 Public minutes; MB 4 Memorandum to the City Council to adjust the ordinance.

10.2.6. Cognosystemic Decision Chain - CDC (by level)

Micro — Data: blind spots and rumors; Meaning: low coordination; Decision: mixed patrols with logbook (MB 2); Effect: useful information and cooperation.

Meso — Data: lengthy meetings without agreements; Meaning: diffuse rules; Decision: roundtable with script/time limits (MB 1) + minutes (MB 3); Effect: implementable agreements.

Macro — Data: ordinance does not contemplate co-management; Meaning: regulatory bottleneck; Decision: memorandum to the City Council (MB 4); Effect: regulatory adjustment in process.

10.2.7. Indicators and targets

· Incidents ≤7/month; sustained participation ≥25 people; diversity of voices (≥40% of the agenda proposed by new actors).

10.2.8. Results (3 months)

· Incidents 7–8/month (−35%); sustained participation 28; 45% of the agenda proposed by new actors; minutes with agreements fulfilled 76%.

10.2.9. Validation Matrix (scores and justification)

Criterion	Traceability (D→M→D→)	Micro–meso–macro alignment	Indicators	Observable effects	Score
Coherence	Chain by level + MCM/MB	Micro/meso aligned; macro under adjustment	incidents, participation, % of agenda	↓ incidents; agreements fulfilled	3
Effectiveness	Plan + patrol records	Changes in meeting rules/practices	compliance, timelines, cooperation	sustained improvement over 3 months	3
Justice	Voice rules + translations	Reserved seats/rotation of spokespersons	45% of agenda from new actors	greater procedural justice	3

10.2.10. Lessons

· When the macro level is under adjustment, documenting micro ⇆ meso “loop closures” sustains improvements and legitimizes regulatory change.

10.3. CASE C — WORK ORGANIZATION (TEAM CLIMATE AND CARE)

10.3.1. Cognosystemic delimitation

Micro: workers/employees and immediate supervisors.
Meso: joint committee (MB 2), HR, internal protocols (MB 1).
Macro: policy of dignified treatment and labor regulations.

10.3.2. Narrative problem

· Sense of mistreatment, unresolved conflicts, high turnover (28% annualized).

10.3.3. Baseline evidence (initial line)

· Perception of recognition 2.1/5; average resolution time 21 days; 0 formal voice procedures.

10.3.4. Meaning Circulation Map (MCM)

· Micro-level friction due to lack of channels; meso level without effective rules; macro level with a policy not implemented.

10.3.5. Mediation Bridges (MB)

· MB 1 Safe reporting channel; MB 2 Joint committee with rules and deadlines; MB 3 Internal policy disseminated in plain language.

10.3.6. Cognosystemic Decision Chain - CDC (by level)

Micro — Data: unreported cases of mistreatment; Meaning: fear/absence of a channel; Decision: safe anonymous channel (MB 1); Effect: increase in reliable reports.

Meso — Data: delayed case files; Meaning: procedural vacuum; Decision: committee with a 10-day SLA (MB 2); Effect: timely resolution.

Macro — Data: existing policy not known; Meaning: weak symbolic recognition; Decision: dissemination and signed acknowledgment (MB 3); Effect: greater clarity regarding rights/duties.

10.3.7. Indicators and targets

· Recognition ≥3.5/5; resolution ≤10 days; ≥80% of cases with feedback provided; turnover ≤18% (at 12 months).

10.3.8. Results (2 months)

· Recognition 3.6/5; resolution 9 days; 92% with feedback provided; turnover trending downward (year not yet complete).

10.3.9. Validation Matrix (scores and justification)

Criterion	Traceability (D→M→D→)	Micro–meso–macro alignment	Indicators	Observable effects	Score
Coherence	Chain/MCM/MB documented	Changes across micro ⇆ meso; macro disseminated	timelines, recognition, feedback	Fewer contradictions among narratives	3
Effectiveness	Plan + case logbook	Rules applied, clear roles	resolution, compliance, turnover (trend)	Early improvement, 1 cycle	2
Justice	Safe reporting channel + parity-based committee	Voice and appeal rules	92% feedback provided; perception of justice	Greater worker agency	3

9.3.10. Lessons

· To strengthen effectiveness (from 2 to 3–4), stability across ≥2 cycles and evidence of impact on annual turnover are required.

11) GENERAL CONCLUSION

The “Cognosystemic Theory of Human Psychosocial Relational Construction” (TCCR) proposes an endogenous epistemology for Social Work, with its own formal object—the narratively constructed psychosocial relationality—and a unit of analysis—the Cognosystem at the micro–meso–macro levels. Within this framework, the Internal Validity Criteria are not a methodological accessory, but the demarcation mechanism that makes it possible to distinguish good readings and interventions from those that, however well intentioned, lack theoretical–practical support within the TCCR. Their function is twofold: they guarantee hermeneutical consistency (that what is said makes sense at all levels) and practical effectiveness (that what is done truly improves the architecture of relationships and does so under fair rules).

The triad Inter-level Coherence – Relational Effectiveness – Relational Justice operates as a system: no dimension substitutes for the others. For this reason, the Validation Matrix adopts the “strong-minimum” principle: the overall standard can never be better than its weakest link among traceability, alignment, indicators, and effects. The cognosystemic instruments—the Meaning Circulation Map (MCM), Mediation Bridges (MB), and the Cognosystemic Decision Chain (CDC)—make visible how data is translated into action and how that action returns as verifiable learning. In this way, knowledge becomes auditable, comparable, and transferable.

The applications presented (school, neighborhood, work organization) show that the guide does not bureaucratize practice: it organizes day-to-day work, accelerates agreements, distributes voice and recognition, and produces results that can be defended before third parties. When loop closures are documented and two or more cycles of improvement are sustained, the organization learns, and the knowledge generated raises the disciplinary credibility of Social Work, without the need to borrow external frameworks.

In sum, this guide turns practice into a laboratory for TCCR theory: each well-traced case feeds an endogenous knowledge base, useful for training, management, and public policy. The challenge is to sustain reflexivity (avoid empty ritualization), protect traceability, and cultivate a common language that keeps actors and levels aligned. With these safeguards, the TCCR not only interprets the relational world: it repairs it with its own criteria and standards open to scrutiny.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE

SIMUNOVIC, Jalin (2025). Cognosystemic Theory of Human Psychosocial Relational Construction TCCR: A unified theoretical proposal for Social Work. Arica, Chile: Social Ius Ediciones.