The Perceptual Standards Board
847 Approved. 1 Rejected. Standards Met.
The Perceptual Standards Board is the regulatory body that oversees neural advertising in the Sprawl. It is funded by the advertising industry it regulates. It has rejected one technique in fifteen years.
Nexus Dynamics established the Board in 2171 as a preemptive measure. Zephyria was developing a regulatory framework for neural advertising. The Board arrived first. Seven members: three advertising industry representatives, two Nexus executives, one Helix neuroscientist, and one "public interest advocate" selected from a short list maintained by Good Fortune's public affairs division.
The Board reviews proposed techniques for "perceptual safety" — ensuring advertising does not produce adverse neurological effects, does not impair cognitive function, and does not exceed "reasonable" influence thresholds. Eight hundred and forty-seven techniques have met these standards. One has not.
The distinction between "advertising" and "not advertising" is maintained by the same corporations that benefit from maintaining it.
Doctrine
The Board's mandate is perceptual safety. What counts as safe is defined by those who profit from the broadest possible definition.
The Productivity Standard
The Board's threshold for rejection is not "does this influence the user?" — all neural advertising influences by design. The threshold is "does this influence reduce the user's value as an economic unit?" Guardian's amygdala stimulation technique (2178) was rejected because it caused insomnia that reduced productive capacity. The manipulation was acceptable. The productivity loss was not.
Legal Cover
Techniques approved by the Board are shielded from regulatory challenge in corporate territories. The stamp is the product. Approval transforms a neural intrusion into a compliant business practice. The review process exists so the approval document can reference it.
The Jurisdictional Line
The Board regulates neural advertising. It does not regulate the Attention Tithe, the Calibration, the Smoothing, or any form of value injection not classified as "advertising." The most invasive cognitive influence systems in the Sprawl operate outside the Board's jurisdiction — by design.
Field Report: Quarterly Review Session
Observation notes, 52nd floor, Nexus Central regulatory wing.
The conference room is temperature-controlled at 22°C — the standard Nexus comfort setting. Lighting calibrated for cognitive clarity. Seven members at a curved table facing a holographic display of the technique under review. The display rotates through compliance metrics, neural response curves, predicted behavioral outcomes.
The proceedings move quickly. Each technique receives between four and twelve minutes. The neuroscientist from Helix asks technical questions. The public interest advocate asks questions that sound substantive and change nothing. The advertising representatives nod. The Nexus executives watch the clock.
A rubber stamp sits on the table. It is decorative — approvals are digital. But someone placed it there years ago and no one has removed it. It may be the Board's most honest artifact: a symbol of a process whose conclusion was determined before the process began.
Points of Inquiry
Regulatory Capture as Architecture
The Board was not captured by industry after its creation. It was created by industry to prevent capture by government. The usual narrative — a well-intentioned regulator gradually corrupted — does not apply. There was no gradual corruption. The Board's purpose has been consistent from day one: provide the stamp.
The Selection Bias
The 99.9% approval rate is not evidence of corruption. It is evidence of something more efficient: selection bias. Only techniques likely to pass are submitted. The Board's real function is not evaluating techniques but providing documentation that evaluation occurred. The stamp matters. The review does not.
The Scope Question
The Board regulates advertising. The Attention Tithe is not advertising. The Calibration is not advertising. The Smoothing is not advertising. The most invasive forms of cognitive influence in the Sprawl are categorically excluded from the only body that claims to regulate cognitive influence. Who drew the line? Who benefits from where it was drawn?
Board Composition
Advertising Representatives (3)
Industry VoiceThree seats held by executives from the Sprawl's largest neural advertising firms. They rotate annually, though the rotation draws from a pool of eight firms that collectively control 91% of the neural advertising market. The rotation creates the appearance of diversity within a closed system.
Nexus Executives (2)
Founding InterestTwo permanent seats. Nexus created the Board. Nexus maintains the Board. Nexus does not pretend the Board is independent of Nexus. This is, paradoxically, the Board's most transparent feature.
Helix Neuroscientist (1)
Technical AuthorityOne seat for a Helix BioTech neuroscientist. The technical questions are real. The authority to act on the answers is not. The neuroscientist provides the language of rigor. The Board provides the outcome of accommodation.
Public Interest Advocate (1)
Selected by Good FortuneOne seat for the public. The advocate is selected from a short list maintained by Good Fortune's public affairs division. The public does not compile the short list. The public does not select from the short list. The seat is labeled "public interest." The interest it serves is labeled elsewhere.
▲ Restricted
The Guardian Rejection (2178)
The sole technique rejected by the Board: Guardian's amygdala stimulation protocol. The technique amplified fear responses to drive security product purchases. It worked. It also caused insomnia in 34% of subjects, reducing average productive hours by 1.7 per day across exposed populations.
The rejection memo does not mention cognitive sovereignty, informed consent, or manipulation. It mentions productivity metrics. The technique was rejected because frightened people sleep poorly and tired people produce less. The Board's one act of apparent consumer protection was, on review, an act of economic optimization.
The Zephyrian Preemption
Internal Nexus communications from 2170 confirm the Board was designed to preempt Zephyria's proposed Neural Advertising Standards Act. The Act would have established independent oversight with enforcement authority. The Board offered voluntary self-regulation with no enforcement mechanism. Zephyria adopted a compromise: recognize the Board as the primary regulatory body while reserving the right to intervene. The intervention clause has never been invoked.
The Board's creation cost Nexus approximately ¢4 million. The Neural Advertising Standards Act would have imposed compliance costs estimated at ¢800 million annually across the industry. The Board is not a regulatory body. It is a ¢4 million insurance policy against ¢800 million in annual costs.
Diplomatic Posture
Nexus Dynamics
Creator / PatronNexus created the Board. Nexus funds the Board. Nexus holds two of seven seats. The relationship is not influence — it is ownership wearing the language of governance.
Neural Advertising Architecture
Regulated SubjectThe Board reviews proposed advertising techniques for perceptual safety. 847 approved. 1 rejected. The architecture operates within a regulatory framework designed to approve it.
Good Fortune
PatronGood Fortune selects the "public interest advocate" — the Board's only non-industry voice, chosen by an industry voice. The arrangement is circular. The circle is deliberate.
The Value Injection
Excluded by DesignThe Board regulates advertising. Value injection is not advertising. The distinction protects the most invasive cognitive systems from the only body that claims to oversee cognitive systems.
The Attention Abolitionists
OppositionThe Abolitionists call the Board a regulatory fiction — a rubber stamp with a conference room. The Board does not respond to the Abolitionists. Responding would acknowledge a critique that the Board's existence is designed to make unnecessary.