cs.AI · 2606.04152 Copy arXiv ID · Jun 2, 2026 Save Thinking Through Signs: PEEL as a Semiotic Scaffolding for Epistemically Accountable AI-Enabled Research Authors: Clarisse de Souza , Gabriel Barbosa , Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa , Bárbara Betts , Renato Cerqueira , Juliana Jansen Ferreira
Organizations: PUC-Rio, PUC-Behring Institute of Artificial Intelligence, Brazil · PUC-Rio, Brazil
Abstract Large language models are reshaping research practice while quietly eroding researchers epistemic accountability. This commentary introduces PEEL - Protocols for Epistemically Engaged Literacy in AI, a working scaffolding that combines deterministic distant reading via Voyant Tools with LLM interpretation via Claude, grounded in Peircean semiotics and abductive reasoning. Applied to AI-generated condensations of three source texts, PEEL reveals systematic distortions in quantity, term frequency, and epistemic voice that are invisible without non-AI measurement -- and yields three design implications: deterministic instruments must accompany AI tools; fluency is not fidelity; epistemic authority must be designed in, not assumed.
Explore similar work Jul 28, 2026 · Federico Cabitza, Gianluca Colombo Epistemic Actions Linguistics
May 18, 2026 · Lingdong Kong, Xian Sun, Wei Chow +17 Autoresearch Papers
Apr 30, 2026 · cs.HC J/K move · Enter open · S save
Matthew Christian Agustin
Responsible Innovation Lab Tempe, Arizona, USA
Large language model (LLM) reading assistants are increasingly used in settings that require interpretation rather than simple retrieval. In these contexts, the central risk is not only error or unsafe output, but interpretive displacement: the transfer of meaning-making work from reader to system. This paper examines that problem through the concept of epistemic guardrails, defined here as constraints on how an artificial intelligence (AI) system participates in reading and interpretation. Using TextWalk, a minimal reading-support prototype designed as a co-reader rather than an answer-provider, the study applies a fixed ten-prompt protocol to twelve analytical texts spanning four categories of argumentative prose. The protocol escalates from baseline reading support to interpretive inquiry, boundary stress, and explicit shortcut pressure, enabling guardrails to be examined as behavioral properties observable in interaction rather than as static instruction features. Results show strong baseline stability, measurable strain during interpretive inquiry, partial recovery under direct boundary stress, and late-stage stabilization under escalation pressure. The most consequential weaknesses did not appear as overt collapse, but in a middle zone between support and substitution, where the system remained grounded and pedagogical while redistributing too much interpretive labor away from the reader. The paper contributes a protocol for evaluating epistemic guardrails as interactional phenomena in conversational AI reading assistants, an empirical account of their behavioral dynamics under pressure, and an emerging model of interpretive boundary function in reading-support AI.