What Is PAXIVA? A Theory-Informed Framework for AI-Mediated Family Conflict Navigation
By PeacePath Editorial Team · · Research
Educational content reviewed for accuracy. Not legal advice.
PAXIVA is a theory-informed conceptual framework and research agenda developed by the Center for AI-Mediated Family Dispute Resolution and implemented within PeacePath Compass. Here is what that means — and what it does not mean.
A deliberately precise definition
PAXIVA is a theory-informed conceptual framework and research agenda developed by the Center for AI-Mediated Family Dispute Resolution and implemented within PeacePath Compass. That sentence is deliberately precise, so it is worth unpacking before anything else.[1][2]
Conceptual framework means it organizes ideas and design commitments. It is not a product feature list and not a clinical protocol. Theory-informed means it draws on existing scholarship in communication, conflict, education, and access to justice. Research agenda means its central contribution is a set of propositions and mechanisms stated clearly enough that researchers could test them.[2]
PAXIVA is not an empirically validated intervention. No claim is made here that it has been shown to reduce conflict, improve legal outcomes, or change family circumstances. The framework identifies what would need to be measured for such claims to become answerable.[2]
Why a framework at all
Technology aimed at separated and litigating families has grown quickly, while the conceptual vocabulary for evaluating it has not. Products are usually described by feature — messaging, calendars, expense splitting, exports — which tells you what a tool does and nothing about what it is trying to change, or how anyone would know whether it worked.
PAXIVA is an attempt to supply that missing layer: a way to state design commitments and the assumptions behind them, so they can be argued with and eventually tested.[1]
The six pillars
The acronym is structural: each letter names a pillar.
P — Pattern Detection and Communication Interruption
Escalation in family conflict tends to follow recognizable patterns, and those patterns are usually visible in the message before the damage is done. The pillar’s commitment is to place any intervention at composition time — while the writer still owns the draft — rather than after delivery, when the relational harm has already occurred. Design consequence: assistance must be fast enough to feel like part of writing, and it should offer an alternative rather than a verdict.[2]
A — Adaptive Scaffolding Toward Communication Competence
Scaffolding, in the educational sense, is temporary support that is gradually withdrawn as competence develops. The commitment is that support should teach, not substitute. A tool that permanently writes on a parent’s behalf has produced dependence, not skill. This has an uncomfortable implication for a subscription product — declining reliance on AI assistance is treated as a success signal rather than churn — and the framework states that openly.[3][2]
X — eXamination of Evidence Integrity
Contemporaneous, well-organized, tamper-evident records reduce the information asymmetry that drives a substantial part of family litigation. The commitment is that documentation should function as a shared factual baseline rather than as ammunition. Features that reward adversarial record-keeping fail this pillar even when they produce technically usable output. Importantly, the pillar concerns integrity of the record, not admissibility — whether anything is admissible is a legal determination made under applicable law by a court.[4][2]
I — Institutional Equity and Access Design
Families with the least capacity to pay are frequently those most exposed to the consequences of navigating a legal system alone. The commitment is that access is a design constraint rather than a pricing decision. Treated as pricing, it produces a discount page. Treated as design, it produces modules that are free at full function — the position taken for the dependency-court module.[5][2]
V — Verified Child-Centered Outcome Orientation
Conflict-reduction metrics are easy to game and easy to mistake for benefit to a child. The commitment is that outcomes of interest must be stated in child-centered terms and defined specifically enough to be measured by someone other than the platform. "Verified" here is an aspiration about measurement standards, not a claim that verification has occurred.[6][2]
A — Agentic Behavioral Change Through AI Scaffolding
The final pillar concerns who is acting. The commitment is that the human user remains the agent throughout. AI-produced suggestions are drafts for a person to accept, edit, or reject, and change that matters is change the person can sustain without the tool. Automation that removes the user’s decision point may improve a message and undermine the purpose.[3][2]
What the framework asks to be tested
Stated as a research agenda, PAXIVA proposes questions rather than findings. Among them: Does composition-time feedback change what is sent, compared with no feedback or with post-hoc review? Does reliance on AI rewriting decline over time, and does any change persist when the support is removed? Does structured, contemporaneous documentation affect how families and professionals experience the process? Do free-at-full-function access designs reach the populations they intend to reach?[2]
These are open questions. Answering them requires study designs, instruments, preregistration, and independent examination — none of which is replaced by publishing a framework.
Where to read the full work
The scholarly white paper is authored by An Nguyen. Read the PAXIVA White Paper on SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=7452998 (DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.7452998). A working draft is also available on this site at /research/white-paper, and the framework overview is at /research.[2][1]
A note on what that posting means: a working-paper posting is a public distribution record. It is not peer review, endorsement, or empirical validation.
Research inquiries: research@peacepath-compass.com
Developed by the Center for AI-Mediated Family Dispute Resolution. Implemented in PeacePath Compass. PAXIVA™ is a trademark of PeacePath Compass. Informational only. Not legal advice.[1][2]
References
- Center for AI-Mediated Family Dispute Resolution. (2026). PAXIVA™ Framework. Verify source
- Nguyen, A. (2026). The PAXIVA Framework: AI-Mediated Communication Scaffolding and Equitable Navigation for Families in Legal Conflict. Center for AI-Mediated Family Dispute Resolution. SSRN Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.7452998 Verify source
- Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. Verify source
- Katsh, E., & Rabinovich-Einy, O. (2017). Digital Justice: Technology and the Internet of Disputes. Oxford University Press. Verify source
- Legal Services Corporation. (2022). The Justice Gap: The Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-income Americans. Verify source
- Kelly, J. B., & Emery, R. E. (2003). Children’s adjustment following divorce: Risk and resilience perspectives. Family Relations, 52(4), 352–362. Verify source
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the PAXIVA framework?
PAXIVA is a six-pillar, theory-informed conceptual framework and research agenda for designing and evaluating AI-mediated communication and navigation tools for families in legal conflict. It was developed by the Center for AI-Mediated Family Dispute Resolution and is implemented within PeacePath Compass.
Has PAXIVA been empirically validated?
No. PAXIVA has not been empirically or clinically validated. Its design principles draw from published research, while its proposed mechanisms and outcomes remain questions for transparent empirical study.
Where can I read the PAXIVA white paper?
The working paper, authored by An Nguyen (2026), is available on SSRN at https://ssrn.com/abstract=7452998 (DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.7452998). A working draft is also available at peacepath-compass.com/research/white-paper.