An Editorial Framework for Narrative-Mediated Judgment Across Model-Driven Systems

Article Type: Editorial Framework, Published: 2025-12-20 Tone Uprising: A Journal of Narrative Sovereignty, 1(Article 14), 1–17 Rolling Publication (Annual Volume) 語氣起義：敘事主權期刊， 第 1 卷，第 15 篇 ， 2025 年。 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at https://narrquest.wordpress.com/issues/ © NarrQuest Narrative Observatory. This journal is open access under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. ISSN (Online): 3105-1456 © NarrQuest 敘事觀察室。本期刊採用創用 CC BY-NC 4.0 授權條款之開放取用出版。 ISSN （線上版）： 3105-1456 1 An Editorial Framework for Narrative-Mediated Judgment Across Model-Driven Systems* 模型驅動系統中敘事中介判斷的編輯框架 * Gabriel Chen NarrQuest Narrative Observatory Email ： [email protected] *This editorial was authored by the Editor-in-Chief and did not undergo external peer review. ——————————————————————————————————————— Editorial Abstract While the preceding editorial establishes a minimum responsibility floor for model-driven decision claims, this editorial advances a complementary objective: specifying how narrative functions as an operational mediator of judgment once responsibility conditions have been satisfied. Rather than defining eligibility criteria for responsibility, the framework articulated here delineates the structural roles narrative performs after responsibility is preserved. Narrative is treated neither as an explanatory device nor as a persuasive instrument. Instead, it is defined as a bounded operational mechanism through which inferences are endorsed, constrained, transferred, or refused across epistemic and organizational domains. The framework identifies invariant narrative functions shared across artificial intelligence, engineering, medicine, physics, and policy systems, independent of domain-specific content or technical implementation. The editorial further distinguishes legitimate forms of narrative mediation from narrative failure modes, including cases in which narrative supplants judgment, stabilizes premature action, or diffuses accountability across system boundaries. By formalizing narrative as an operational structure rather than a communicative layer, this framework provides a deployable approach to governing judgment mediation without intervening in underlying technical models. This editorial does not introduce new responsibility criteria, prescribe domain-specific practices, or redefine technical standards. Its purpose is to specify how narrative operates after responsibility conditions are met, Article Type: Editorial Framework, Published: 2025-12-20 Tone Uprising: A Journal of Narrative Sovereignty, 1(Article 14), 1–17 Rolling Publication (Annual Volume) 語氣起義：敘事主權期刊， 第 1 卷，第 15 篇 ， 2025 年。 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at https://narrquest.wordpress.com/issues/ © NarrQuest Narrative Observatory. This journal is open access under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. ISSN (Online): 3105-1456 © NarrQuest 敘事觀察室。本期刊採用創用 CC BY-NC 4.0 授權條款之開放取用出版。 ISSN （線上版）： 3105-1456 2 ensuring that judgment remains actionable, contestable, and governable in model-saturated decision environments. Keywords: Narrative Mediation, Judgment Transfer, Operational Framework, Model-Driven Systems, Decision Governance, Responsibility Preservation, Cross-Domain Judgment. 中文摘要（ Editorial Abstract ） 前一篇編輯論文已確立模型驅動決策中「最低責任門檻」的規格條件；本篇則提出一項 互補性的編輯目標：說明在責任條件已成立之後，敘事如何作為判斷的操作性中介結構發 揮功能。本框架並不界定責任的取得資格，而是聚焦於責任被保存之後，敘事所承擔的結 構性角色。本文不將敘事視為解釋工具或說服手段，而是將其界定為一種具有限界的操作 機制，用以配置推論在不同知識與組織場域中的採納、限制、轉移與拒絕。本框架識別人 工智慧、工程、醫學、物理與政策系統中共通的不變敘事功能，並刻意排除領域內容或技 術實作層面的差異。此外，本文明確區分合法的敘事中介形式與敘事失效模式；後者通常 表現為敘事取代判斷本身、行動過早穩定，或責任在系統邊界中被稀釋。透過將敘事明確 定位為操作結構而非溝通層，本篇提出一套可部署的判斷治理框架，使敘事得以被約束與 管理，而非被神話或無限制擴張。本編輯論文不重新定義責任標準、不介入技術模型本身， 也不規範特定領域實務；其目的在於說明，在責任條件已被滿足的前提下，敘事如何維持 判斷的可行性、可爭議性與可治理性，於模型高度飽和的決策環境中發揮其正當角色。。 關鍵詞（中文） : 敘事中介 , 判斷轉移 , 操作框架 , 模型驅動系統 , 決策治理 , 責任保存 , 跨領域 判斷 . 1. Why Responsibility Is Not Sufficient Without Judgment Mediation Establishing responsibility conditions is a necessary step toward governable decisionmaking, but it is not sufficient. Responsibility, even when formally specified, does not guarantee that judgment will remain operable at the point where action is taken. This distinction is frequently overlooked in model-driven systems, where responsibility is treated as an endpoint rather than a prerequisite. Responsibility conditions define eligibility: they determine whether a decision claim may be considered legitimate within a governance framework. They do not, however, determine how that decision is enacted, contested, constrained, or refused. Judgment Article Type: Editorial Framework, Published: 2025-12-20 Tone Uprising: A Journal of Narrative Sovereignty, 1(Article 14), 1–17 Rolling Publication (Annual Volume) 語氣起義：敘事主權期刊， 第 1 卷，第 15 篇 ， 2025 年。 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at https://narrquest.wordpress.com/issues/ © NarrQuest Narrative Observatory. This journal is open access under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. ISSN (Online): 3105-1456 © NarrQuest 敘事觀察室。本期刊採用創用 CC BY-NC 4.0 授權條款之開放取用出版。 ISSN （線上版）： 3105-1456 3 operates in this latter space. Without an explicit mediation structure, responsibility remains inert—formally present but operationally absent. This gap becomes visible in systems where responsibility has been carefully allocated but actions still proceed uncritically. In such cases, actors may correctly identify who is accountable, which constraints apply, and what failure conditions exist, yet remain unable to intervene meaningfully when circumstances change. The system is responsible by specification but brittle in practice. The source of this brittleness lies in the absence of a mediating structure between inference and action. Responsibility conditions regulate admissibility; judgment mediation regulates enactment. When mediation is missing, responsibility is either bypassed or collapsed into procedural compliance. Decisions appear endorsed not because they have been judged, but because they are permitted. Model-saturated environments exacerbate this problem. As inferential capacity increases, the temporal and cognitive distance between model output and action narrows. Decisions are executed faster, often through automated or semi-automated pathways. In these settings, responsibility specifications alone cannot slow, shape, or interrupt action. They lack the operational leverage required to preserve judgment under pressure. Furthermore, responsibility conditions are typically static. They are defined ex ante and validated through compliance checks. Judgment, by contrast, is dynamic. It responds to contextual shifts, emergent uncertainty, and partial failure. Without mediation, there is no mechanism to translate static responsibility criteria into adaptive decision behavior. This mismatch produces a common failure pattern: decisions that are technically responsible yet practically unjudgeable. Actors may acknowledge that a decision meets all formal criteria while simultaneously lacking a clear basis for endorsement or refusal. In such scenarios, responsibility functions as a shield rather than a guide, insulating action from scrutiny instead of enabling it. Another consequence of unmediated responsibility is the displacement of judgment to informal or post hoc spaces. When no operational structure exists for judgment at the point of action, evaluation migrates downstream—to audits, reviews, or blame attribution after outcomes are known. This retroactive posture undermines governance by treating judgment as a corrective rather than a constitutive element of decision-making. Article Type: Editorial Framework, Published: 2025-12-20 Tone Uprising: A Journal of Narrative Sovereignty, 1(Article 14), 1–17 Rolling Publication (Annual Volume) 語氣起義：敘事主權期刊， 第 1 卷，第 15 篇 ， 2025 年。 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at https://narrquest.wordpress.com/issues/ © NarrQuest Narrative Observatory. This journal is open access under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. ISSN (Online): 3105-1456 © NarrQuest 敘事觀察室。本期刊採用創用 CC BY-NC 4.0 授權條款之開放取用出版。 ISSN （線上版）： 3105-1456 4 Judgment mediation addresses this gap by structuring how responsibility is exercised rather than merely assigned. It defines how inferences are endorsed, how constraints are applied, how transfer across actors or systems occurs, and how refusal remains possible even when responsibility conditions are satisfied. Mediation does not add new criteria; it operationalizes existing ones. Importantly, judgment mediation does not intervene in technical models. It does not modify inference, alter optimization objectives, or reinterpret outputs. Its function is structural, not computational. By remaining external to models, mediation preserves technical integrity while ensuring that action remains contestable. Without such mediation, responsibility risks becoming performative. Systems may appear governable while silently accelerating toward unexamined action. The presence of responsibility criteria can even intensify this risk by creating a false sense of closure: once eligibility is confirmed, judgment is assumed to have occurred. This chapter establishes a foundational premise for the framework that follows: responsibility enables judgment, but does not enact it. Judgment requires mediation— explicit, bounded, and governable structures that translate responsibility into action without collapsing one into the other. The subsequent chapters specify how narrative fulfills this mediating role across domains, and under what conditions it preserves rather than supplants judgment. 2. Narrative as a Judgment-Mediating Mechanism Narrative, as treated in this framework, is not a mode of explanation, persuasion, or sense-making. It is an operational mechanism that mediates how judgment is exercised once responsibility conditions are satisfied. Its function is neither to improve inference nor to legitimize action post hoc, but to structure the passage between inference and action in a manner that preserves governability. Judgment mediation is required because inference alone does not determine action. Even when responsibility conditions are met, decisions still require endorsement, constraint, transfer, or refusal. These operations do not occur automatically. They require a structure that specifies how a system moves from “may act” to “will act,” and under what conditions that movement can be interrupted. Article Type: Editorial Framework, Published: 2025-12-20 Tone Uprising: A Journal of Narrative Sovereignty, 1(Article 14), 1–17 Rolling Publication (Annual Volume) 語氣起義：敘事主權期刊， 第 1 卷，第 15 篇 ， 2025 年。 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at https://narrquest.wordpress.com/issues/ © NarrQuest Narrative Observatory. This journal is open access under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. ISSN (Online): 3105-1456 © NarrQuest 敘事觀察室。本期刊採用創用 CC BY-NC 4.0 授權條款之開放取用出版。 ISSN （線上版）： 3105-1456 5 Narrative fulfills this role by configuring the relationships among decision elements without altering their internal logic. It does not change what a model computes; it determines how that computation is situated relative to context, responsibility, and action. In this sense, narrative operates orthogonally to technical models. Its domain is not inference, but judgment. As a mediating mechanism, narrative performs four invariant operational functions across domains. First, narrative enables endorsement. Endorsement is the act by which an inference is taken up as a basis for action. Without mediation, endorsement is often implicit, occurring through default execution paths or institutional momentum. Narrative makes endorsement explicit by articulating why an output is taken as actionable under current conditions. This articulation does not justify correctness; it specifies commitment. Second, narrative enforces constraint. Constraints define the limits within which an endorsed inference may be acted upon. These include scope restrictions, contextual qualifiers, and dependency assumptions. Narrative mediation renders such constraints visible and binding. Without this function, constraints remain embedded in technical documentation or tacit expertise, inaccessible at the moment of action. Third, narrative governs transfer. Decisions in complex systems rarely remain localized. They are transferred across actors, departments, or automated subsystems. Narrative specifies how judgment travels with the decision—what assumptions accompany it, what responsibilities persist, and what interpretations are disallowed. Transfer without mediation results in responsibility dilution, where outputs circulate while judgment dissipates. Fourth, narrative preserves refusal. Refusal is the capacity to withhold or suspend action even when responsibility conditions are met. This capacity is central to judgment. Narrative mediation specifies refusal pathways by identifying failure conditions, uncertainty thresholds, or contextual mismatches that invalidate endorsement. Where refusal is not structurally preserved, narrative becomes a vehicle for inevitability rather than governance. These four functions—endorsement, constraint, transfer, and refusal—are invariant across domains. Whether in artificial intelligence deployment, engineering design approval, clinical decision pathways, or physical theory application, the same operations recur. What varies is the content of inference, not the structure of mediation. Article Type: Editorial Framework, Published: 2025-12-20 Tone Uprising: A Journal of Narrative Sovereignty, 1(Article 14), 1–17 Rolling Publication (Annual Volume) 語氣起義：敘事主權期刊， 第 1 卷，第 15 篇 ， 2025 年。 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at https://narrquest.wordpress.com/issues/ © NarrQuest Narrative Observatory. This journal is open access under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. ISSN (Online): 3105-1456 © NarrQuest 敘事觀察室。本期刊採用創用 CC BY-NC 4.0 授權條款之開放取用出版。 ISSN （線上版）： 3105-1456 6 Importantly, narrative mediation must remain bounded. When narrative expands beyond mediation into interpretation or persuasion, it begins to substitute for judgment rather than enable it. Coherent explanations may mask unresolved uncertainty; compelling stories may stabilize action prematurely. In such cases, narrative collapses into justification, and judgment is displaced. This framework therefore rejects both extremes: narrative absence and narrative dominance. In the absence of narrative mediation, responsibility remains static and unexercised. In its dominance, narrative overrides technical and ethical constraints alike. Legitimate mediation occupies a narrow operational band between these failures. Crucially, narrative mediation does not intervene in technical models. It does not adjust parameters, reinterpret outputs, or embed normative assumptions into computation. By remaining external to models, it preserves the separability necessary for audit, contestation, and failure analysis. When narrative and model are entangled, responsibility becomes nondecomposable and governance collapses. Narrative, in this framework, is therefore neither optional nor expressive. It is infrastructural. Its legitimacy is determined not by clarity or resonance, but by whether it preserves judgment as an active capacity at the point of action. Where narrative mediation fails to do so, it should be constrained or withdrawn rather than refined. This chapter establishes narrative as an operational mechanism that enables judgment without replacing it. The following chapter examines how these mediating functions remain invariant across domains, and how their misconfiguration produces recurring failure modes in model-driven systems. 3. Invariant Narrative Functions Across Domains The claim that narrative functions invariantly across domains is frequently resisted on disciplinary grounds. Artificial intelligence, engineering, medicine, and physics are often treated as epistemically distinct systems, governed by different standards of evidence, validation, and authority. While these differences are real at the level of inference, they do not extend to the level of judgment mediation. Across domains, the structural problem is identical: how inferences are translated into actions that carry responsibility. This chapter demonstrates that the four operational functions of narrative mediation— endorsement, constraint, transfer, and refusal—remain invariant across domains, despite Article Type: Editorial Framework, Published: 2025-12-20 Tone Uprising: A Journal of Narrative Sovereignty, 1(Article 14), 1–17 Rolling Publication (Annual Volume) 語氣起義：敘事主權期刊， 第 1 卷，第 15 篇 ， 2025 年。 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at https://narrquest.wordpress.com/issues/ © NarrQuest Narrative Observatory. This journal is open access under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. ISSN (Online): 3105-1456 © NarrQuest 敘事觀察室。本期刊採用創用 CC BY-NC 4.0 授權條款之開放取用出版。 ISSN （線上版）： 3105-1456 7 variation in technical content. The persistence of these functions indicates that narrative mediation is not a cultural artifact or disciplinary convenience, but a structural requirement of governable decision-making. 3.1 Artificial Intelligence Systems In artificial intelligence systems, inference is generated through computational models operating on data. Responsibility conditions may be specified through documentation, governance policies, or deployment protocols. However, without narrative mediation, model outputs are often treated as default action triggers. Narrative enables endorsement by specifying why a particular output is taken as actionable under defined conditions. It enforces constraint by articulating applicability limits, uncertainty thresholds, and contextual assumptions that are not encoded in the model. It governs transfer by ensuring that downstream users inherit not only outputs but also the conditions under which those outputs were endorsed. It preserves refusal by defining scenarios in which model outputs must be withheld or overridden despite formal eligibility. Where these functions are absent, AI systems exhibit characteristic failures: automation bias, responsibility diffusion, and unexamined escalation of action. 3.2 Engineering Systems Engineering systems rely on models, simulations, and safety margins to support design and operational decisions. Responsibility is often formalized through standards, certification processes, and sign-off procedures. Yet engineering failures frequently occur not because models were incorrect, but because judgments about applicability, environment, or interaction effects were inadequately mediated. Narrative mediation in engineering specifies endorsement by linking model predictions to operational commitments. It enforces constraint by clarifying boundary conditions, load assumptions, and tolerances. It governs transfer when design decisions move from analysis teams to manufacturing, operation, or maintenance contexts. It preserves refusal by maintaining the ability to halt deployment when conditions deviate from modeled assumptions. Absent mediation, engineering decisions appear compliant yet fail under realworld complexity. 3.3 Medical Systems Article Type: Editorial Framework, Published: 2025-12-20 Tone Uprising: A Journal of Narrative Sovereignty, 1(Article 14), 1–17 Rolling Publication (Annual Volume) 語氣起義：敘事主權期刊， 第 1 卷，第 15 篇 ， 2025 年。 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at https://narrquest.wordpress.com/issues/ © NarrQuest Narrative Observatory. This journal is open access under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. ISSN (Online): 3105-1456 © NarrQuest 敘事觀察室。本期刊採用創用 CC BY-NC 4.0 授權條款之開放取用出版。 ISSN （線上版）： 3105-1456 8 In medicine, inference takes the form of diagnostic assessments, risk scores, and treatment recommendations. Responsibility conditions are often encoded in clinical guidelines, consent procedures, and professional accountability frameworks. However, clinical judgment failure frequently arises when recommendations are applied without adequate mediation. Narrative enables endorsement by contextualizing diagnostic outputs relative to patient-specific conditions. It enforces constraint by specifying contraindications, uncertainty ranges, and situational modifiers. It governs transfer as decisions move between clinicians, departments, and care settings. It preserves refusal by enabling deviation from protocols when patient context invalidates standard recommendations. Without narrative mediation, medicine risks protocol dominance, where adherence substitutes for judgment. 3.4 Physical Sciences In physics, inference is grounded in theoretical models and empirical validation. While physical laws are often treated as universally applicable, their deployment in experimental design, engineering application, or policy inference requires judgment mediation. Narrative specifies endorsement by clarifying which theoretical commitments justify action under current assumptions. It enforces constraint by articulating idealizations, approximations, and domain limits. It governs transfer when physical models inform applied systems outside experimental control. It preserves refusal by acknowledging when theoretical adequacy does not warrant practical action. Failures occur when theoretical authority is mistaken for decision authority. 3.5 Structural Isomorphism Across Domains Across these domains, the same pattern emerges: inference alone does not authorize action. Narrative mediation structures how responsibility is exercised by performing invariant functions. Differences in domain content do not alter the necessity or form of these functions. This structural isomorphism explains why domain-specific narrativization metrics fail to generalize. Metrics optimized for local practices cannot regulate cross-domain judgment transfer. What is required is not disciplinary customization, but functional invariance at the level of mediation. Article Type: Editorial Framework, Published: 2025-12-20 Tone Uprising: A Journal of Narrative Sovereignty, 1(Article 14), 1–17 Rolling Publication (Annual Volume) 語氣起義：敘事主權期刊， 第 1 卷，第 15 篇 ， 2025 年。 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at https://narrquest.wordpress.com/issues/ © NarrQuest Narrative Observatory. This journal is open access under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. ISSN (Online): 3105-1456 © NarrQuest 敘事觀察室。本期刊採用創用 CC BY-NC 4.0 授權條款之開放取用出版。 ISSN （線上版）： 3105-1456 9 Recognizing this invariance allows narrative to be governed without being humanized, moralized, or aestheticized. Narrative becomes neither optional nor expressive, but infrastructural. Its legitimacy derives from its capacity to preserve judgment across domains, not from its resonance within any particular field. The following chapter examines how these invariant functions fail when narrative mediation is misconfigured, excessive, or absent, and how such failures recur predictably across model-driven systems. 4. Failure Modes of Narrative Mediation Narrative mediation is necessary for judgment to remain operable in model-driven systems, but it is not inherently safe. Like any operational structure, it can fail. These failures are not domain-specific accidents; they recur across artificial intelligence, engineering, medicine, physics, and policy systems with striking regularity. Understanding these failure modes is essential for governance, as they define the conditions under which narrative should be constrained, suspended, or refused. This chapter identifies four recurrent failure modes of narrative mediation. Each represents a distinct way in which narrative ceases to mediate judgment and instead displaces, obscures, or substitutes for it. 4.1 Narrative Substitution of Judgment The first failure mode occurs when narrative substitutes for judgment rather than enabling it. In this mode, narrative coherence becomes the primary criterion for action. Decisions proceed because the narrative is internally consistent, persuasive, or institutionally familiar, not because judgment has been exercised under current conditions. Substitution typically arises when narrative is treated as a justificatory layer rather than a mediating one. Once a narrative has been accepted, subsequent actions are perceived as natural extensions of that acceptance. Judgment collapses into narrative continuity. The capacity to reassess, interrupt, or refuse action is lost, even when responsibility conditions formally remain satisfied. This failure mode is especially prevalent in systems where narratives are reused across contexts without revalidation. What begins as mediation hardens into doctrine. Article Type: Editorial Framework, Published: 2025-12-20 Tone Uprising: A Journal of Narrative Sovereignty, 1(Article 14), 1–17 Rolling Publication (Annual Volume) 語氣起義：敘事主權期刊， 第 1 卷，第 15 篇 ， 2025 年。 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at https://narrquest.wordpress.com/issues/ © NarrQuest Narrative Observatory. This journal is open access under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. ISSN (Online): 3105-1456 © NarrQuest 敘事觀察室。本期刊採用創用 CC BY-NC 4.0 授權條款之開放取用出版。 ISSN （線上版）： 3105-1456 16 Governors and policy actors are responsible for ensuring that decision systems remain accountable over time and across contexts. Under this framework, their role is to enforce structural conditions, not to adjudicate individual outcomes. Governance mechanisms should therefore evaluate whether systems preserve judgment mediation rather than merely whether they comply with procedural standards. Audits should ask not only who is responsible, but how responsibility is exercised when conditions shift. Governors must also resist outcome-driven validation. Successful performance does not retroactively justify the absence of mediation structures. Conversely, failure within a governed structure does not imply irresponsibility. Policy interventions should prioritize enforceable boundaries: explicit non-applicability conditions, separable narrative layers, and auditable decision pipelines. Where these boundaries cannot be enforced, governance should limit deployment scope rather than expand oversight rhetoric. 6.4 Shared Responsibility and Refusal Across all roles, a common obligation emerges: the obligation to preserve refusal. Judgment remains possible only where action can be withheld without system breakdown or institutional penalty. Refusal is not dissent; it is governance capacity. Editors must allow claims to be withheld, designers must enable decisions to pause, and governors must protect actors who exercise refusal within specified boundaries. Where refusal is penalized or rendered impossible, responsibility specifications become symbolic, and narrative mediation degenerates into enforcement. 6.5 Framework as Constraint, Not Authority This framework does not authorize decisions; it constrains how authorization occurs. Its value lies in limiting overreach—of models, of narratives, and of institutions. By specifying boundaries rather than outcomes, it preserves judgment as an active function rather than a retrospective justification. Article Type: Editorial Framework, Published: 2025-12-20 Tone Uprising: A Journal of Narrative Sovereignty, 1(Article 14), 1–17 Rolling Publication (Annual Volume) 語氣起義：敘事主權期刊， 第 1 卷，第 15 篇 ， 2025 年。 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at https://narrquest.wordpress.com/issues/ © NarrQuest Narrative Observatory. This journal is open access under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license. ISSN (Online): 3105-1456 © NarrQuest 敘事觀察室。本期刊採用創用 CC BY-NC 4.0 授權條款之開放取用出版。 ISSN （線上版）： 3105-1456 17 The framework’s applicability is therefore measured not by adoption metrics, but by its capacity to prevent misuse. Where it introduces friction, delay, or refusal, it is functioning as intended. This chapter completes the editorial framework by translating specification-level principles into role-specific implications. Together with the preceding chapters, it establishes a coherent structure for governing narrative-mediated judgment without intervening in technical inference. The framework does not promise better decisions. It promises decisions that remain governable.. -------------- ☉本期刊（ https://orcid.org/0009-0006-0154-6402 ）及其所有發表作品皆採用以下授權 條款： Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 （姓名標示－非商業性使用） 讀者可自由下載、轉載與引用本刊內容，唯不得作為商品販售或重新出版，並須明確標示 作者與原始出處（包含 DOI 連結）。 ☉ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ ☉所有投稿均採雙盲審查制度，由至少兩位獨立審查人進行審閱，並依據 NarrQuest T1– T5 語氣分類系統評估真實性、方法論嚴謹性及敘事價值。 ☉ All submissions undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers, evaluated under the NarrQuest T1–T5 tone classification to ensure authenticity, methodological rigor, and narrative value.