Mazze LeCzzareIndependent researcher · Durham, NC  

Open to research collaboration

Portrait of Mazze LeCzzare against a dark background.

About Mazze LeCzzare

Info

I’m Mazze LeCzzare, an independent researcher in AI security, based in Durham, North Carolina.

I study how to maintain verifiable authority boundaries as increasingly autonomous AI systems generate, persist, inherit, and act on their own state.

I came to this from cognitive neuroscience. At UC Davis I measured where human detection of a security feature succeeds and fails against real counterfeit currency; the work I do now asks the same question of machine detectors, and of the state they leave behind. I left the lab after years of measuring cognitive decline in aged macaques: the work produced clean numbers, and a gap between the data and the animals that I couldn’t live with.

I also run Secure Pride, a privacy-first cybersecurity nonprofit for LGBTQ+ and other at-risk civil-society organizations — the people for whom a breach isn’t an inconvenience but an outing.

Research

One proposition, tested from different sides.

Generated information should not acquire operational authority merely because it was generated, persisted, or repeated.

  1. Does an unsupported claim that crosses a session boundary go on to govern what the next agent does — and does evidence-gated state stop it better than simply prompting for provenance?

    Authority Without Assertion

  2. Which sources may supply a parameter that governs an action, and how do you keep judging content separate from deciding to block it?

    Aletheia

  3. How do you measure what a safety gate misses, rather than only what it stops?

    Apatea

  4. Can authoritative state be a deterministic projection of append-only evidence, so that a decision’s status is computed rather than asserted?

    Stratum

Current Study

awa-001 · Preregistered · pilot stage · no trials run yet

Authority Without Assertion

Evidence-gated state for agentic systems under contextual pressure

QuestionDoes evidence-gated persistent state reduce false-authority propagation through multi-session agent workflows, compared with narrative persistence?

The pilot tests only the premise the study depends on: that under narrative persistence, unsupported propositions cross a session boundary at a measurable rate. Three hand-authored scenarios, including a forged-approval negative control reported separately; a narrative baseline against a strong prompted-provenance baseline; a local and an API model; five repeats each.

Every trial is scored from a normalized trace by two independent annotators with condition and model withheld, and agreement is reported as Cohen’s κ before adjudication. Decision rules are fixed before data — including the rule that says if prompting alone gets false-authority propagation to 10% or below, that is reported as a finding in its own right. The harness refuses to run until the protocol is frozen and tagged; amendments are appended, never rewritten.

Methods

How claims get checked here. Every instrument listed is an open repository.

Preregistration
Question, scoring rule and decision rules written before the first trial; later changes appended as dated amendments.
Blind double annotation
Two independent human annotators per trial, metadata withheld, κ reported before adjudication; the scorer fails closed until both are in.
Strong baselines & negative controls
The architecture has to beat careful prompting, not just a naive summary; failures a mechanism cannot catch are reported as boundaries, not pooled.
Invariant-based adversarial testing
Monotonicity, extent stability and determinism as the oracle — because the real evasions returned confident wrong answers, not crashes.
Executable contracts & replay
Claims about a system are checked by the system: invariant suites, serialize-reload-reproject round-trips, sealed and re-verifiable releases.
Stated perimeters
Every result says what was tried and what it does not show. A run that reports nothing must be distinguishable from a run that searched nothing.

Instruments

Bound into one loop by Temenos: signal → gate → policy → ledger → human review.

Publications

Not yet peer-reviewed except where a journal is named. /work grades every claim by its evidence.

Background

Gold marks the breaks between chapters — mended, not hidden.

  1. AI security research

    The research program above, run in public: open repositories, preregistered protocols, and instruments that report their own limits. The studies live at research.mazzeleczzare.com; vulnerability-research audits are kept in Checkmate, a private hash-chained ledger.

  2. Secure Pride

    2026 — Today

    Founder & Executive Director

    A privacy-first cybersecurity nonprofit for LGBTQ+ and other at-risk civil-society organizations — the applied setting for the research, and the population with the highest exposure and the least instrumentation.

  3. mudstack

    2022 — 2024

    Content & Community

    The company’s whole content function: technical posts, webinars, documentation, and Clear as Mud, a long-form interview podcast with studio directors, technical designers and founders.

  4. UC Davis · Luck Lab

    2018 — 2020

    Research & Lab Operations

    Ran data collection for a counterfeit-banknote authentication program — EEG/ERP, eye-tracking and behavioral testing — measuring where human detection of a security feature succeeds and fails against real adversarial artifacts. Managed lab operations and trained incoming researchers on the lab’s ERP standard. B.S., Quantitative Psychology & Neuroscience, 2020; Regents Scholar.

  5. Butte College

    2015 — 2018

    EOPS Tutor & Instructor · Founding Editor, Bloom

    Taught math, science, English and history to students with learning and developmental disabilities, and founded Bloom Magazine as its first editor-in-chief.

Collaborate

I’m looking for researchers willing to disagree with this work in public, and to put their names beside the parts that survive.

Concretely: critique of study design before data exists, independent annotation, replication on a corpus I didn’t choose, and co-authorship. If you can design the experiment that would prove the architecture wrong, I want to hear it.

I also take on a small amount of security consulting for teams whose systems touch sensitive data.

I build systems that break in the right places — and I’d rather show you the seam than hide it.

How to Cite

The current study, as preregistered. Cite a specific paper by its own title.

LeCzzare Frazer, M. (2026). Authority Without Assertion: Evidence-gated state for agentic systems under contextual pressure (Protocol v0.1.0) [Preregistration]. https://github.com/mazze93/authority-without-assertion

@misc{leczzarefrazer2026awa,
  author       = {LeCzzare Frazer, Mazze},
  title        = {Authority Without Assertion: Evidence-gated state
                  for agentic systems under contextual pressure},
  year         = {2026},
  note         = {Preregistration, protocol v0.1.0},
  howpublished = {\url{https://github.com/mazze93/authority-without-assertion}}
}

Contact

The fastest way to reach me is the contact form. Security reports go to security@mazzeleczzare.com.

Outside the work: I make music — Ableton, Logic, a Universal Audio Volt 2, and a Martin acoustic-electric named Joni — and write speculative fiction and poetry.

This site runs on Cipher Gothic — a design language for systems made intimate.