Civilizational Healing Research Architecture: A Transdisciplinary Programme for Life-Grounded Diagnosis, Repair, Regeneration, and Learning

This document converts a life-grounded theory of civilizational healing into a six-year transdisciplinary research programme. The programme investigates how societies recognize, interrupt, repair, transform, and learn from injuries that are reproduced across biological, relational, institutional, political-economic, epistemic, and ecological levels. It is designed to produce theory, comparative evidence, measurement tools, real-world experiments, and governance capacities without reducing civilizational healing to a single score or universal blueprint. The programme’s primary unit of analysis is the healing episode: a bounded, historically situated sequence in which identifiable actors confront a defined pattern of injury through recognition, protection, repair, transformation, regeneration, and learning. Episodes may occur in post-conflict settings, health systems, ecological restoration, colonial repair, democratic renewal, or just transition. This unit permits comparison while preserving context, power, and history. Six linked work packages carry the programme: 1. WP1 · Foundations and construct validation establishes definitions, boundaries, rival concepts, and cross-cultural validity. 2. WP2 · Comparative healing atlas builds a structured corpus of historical and contemporary episodes. 3. WP3 · Measurement and observatory develops disaggregated life-capacity measures, process indicators, and non-displacement audits. 4. WP4 · Mechanisms, power, and cross-scale pathways tests how institutional arrangements, narratives, authority, resources, and protective margins shape outcomes. 5. WP5 · Participatory healing laboratories co-designs and evaluates bounded interventions in real-world institutions and communities. 6. WP6 · Synthesis, governance, and translation integrates findings, maintains ethical and scientific quality, supports practitioner learning, and establishes a durable observatory and network. The research is governed through shared decision authority. A Programme Council holds fiduciary and strategic responsibility; a Scientific and Methods Board protects inferential quality; Community Research Assemblies co-govern site priorities and interpretation; an Indigenous Governance Circle holds authority over research affecting Indigenous peoples, lands, and knowledge; and an independent Ethics, Data, and Safeguards Board can pause work. A red-team function tests conceptual overreach, political capture, metric gaming, and unintended harm. Success is not defined by positive findings. The programme succeeds if it clarifies where the theory is useful, where it fails, which mechanisms are context-dependent, how repair can be completed more reliably, and how harms or burdens can be detected before they are displaced. All major claims are exposed to rival explanations, and negative or null findings remain publishable programme outputs.