Abstract

This study develops a structural diagnosis of contemporary transformations in scientific knowledge production under conditions of synthetic intelligence. It introduces the Structural Diagnosis of Scientific Integrity (SDSI) framework, a multi-layer analytical architecture designed to examine how algorithmic mediation may reconfigure the epistemic infrastructure of science. The framework integrates philosophical analysis, metascientific insights, and qualitative observation of generative AI systems. At the centre of the framework lies the concept of Machine Epistemic Singularity (MES) , defined not as a prediction of collapse but as a diagnostic horizon—a conceptual limit clarifying what is at stake when algorithmic systems become deeply embedded in scientific practice. MES denotes a hypothetical regime in which empirical correction becomes structurally marginal, recursive closure becomes self-sustaining, representational drift becomes resistant to reversal, and institutional mechanisms lose their capacity to maintain what the study terms material accountability: the property of epistemic systems whose outputs remain corrigible through empirical engagement with the world. The SDSI framework consists of four interconnected components. First, a diagnostic grammar grounded in the representation–referent distinction identifies referential attenuation, the progressive weakening of causal and evidential links between scientific claims and empirical origins. Second, the regulative ideal of material accountability provides a normative anchor for assessing epistemic stability across hybrid human–machine assemblages. Third, four structural tendencies—referential attenuation, structural opacity, recursive closure, and epistemic lock in—describe mechanisms through which algorithmic mediation may weaken epistemic accountability. Fourth, fifteen axes of epistemic vulnerability, distributed across empirical, representational, institutional, and algorithmic layers, function as systemic stress vectors within a multi layer epistemic network. To explore whether these mechanisms are observable in practice, the study employs qualitative diagnostic probes examining contemporary generative AI systems. Five probes—unattributed recombination, performance without understanding, authoritative posture without accountability, synthetic drift, and recursive reinforcement—indicate that the mechanisms theorised in the framework are operational in micro form within systems increasingly used in research adjacent workflows. The analysis is then extended to system level dynamics by modelling science as a multi layer epistemic network. Three propagation mechanisms—amplification, accumulation, and structural coupling—are identified, along with three threshold conditions—empirical dilution, validation saturation, and recursive dependence—proposed as empirically monitorable indicators of when localised vulnerabilities may become self reinforcing. The study advances five contributions: (1) material accountability as a normative anchor for evaluating epistemic stability; (2) algorithmic mediation as a distinct epistemic layer within scientific infrastructure; (3) four structural tendencies describing pathways of epistemic drift; (4) a systemic stress model derived from fifteen axes of vulnerability; and (5) MES as a diagnostic horizon integrating these mechanisms. The framework is offered as a diagnostic lens rather than a predictive or prescriptive programme. Its aim is not to determine the future of science, but to illuminate the structural pressures that may shape scientific knowledge production as algorithmic systems become increasingly integrated into its epistemic architecture.