# The European Scientific Prosecutor’s Office for Emerging Technology (SPO-ET):
## A Blueprint for Foresight as Sovereignty
**European Sovereignty Forum on Innovation and Autonomy (E-SOFIA)**
**October 2025 | Policy Brief Series No. 4**
---
### **Abstract**
Europe’s democratic life, market fairness, and economic sovereignty are now shaped by vast technological systems largely designed and governed beyond the Union’s jurisdiction.
The **European Scientific Prosecutor’s Office for Emerging Technology (SPO-ET)** is a parliamentary-anchored, science-driven institutional proposal that detects, validates, and remediates systemic technological harms at scale.
It merges independent scientific auditing, prosecutorial validation, and strategic substitution into a phased pathway that turns foresight into enforceable action—an architecture of governance designed to make Europe harder to blackmail and quicker to act.
---
## **1. The Vision**
> “Information is not knowledge, knowledge is not wisdom, and wisdom is not foresight.” — *Arthur C. Clarke*
> “Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe.” — *H. G. Wells*
Europe’s task is to turn those warnings into law.
SPO-ET is the next instrument in Europe’s grand project: the transformation of moral imagination into institutional foresight.
The idea is simple but radical: **if technology now governs reality, democracy must govern technology.**
To do so, Parliament requires a scientific body capable of measuring truth before harm becomes irreversible.
That body must see as far ahead as Ada Lovelace imagined, act with Alan Turing’s rigor, innovate with Steve Jobs’ humanism, and remember, like the Doctor wandering time, that foresight without ethics becomes tyranny.
Europe has the scale, the science, and the legal tradition to make this real.
SPO-ET is where those capacities meet.
---
## **2. Executive Summary**
SPO-ET answers a simple structural gap:
Europe possesses regulators (the Commission), enforcers (national authorities, EPPO), and courts—but no standing, Parliament-anchored *scientific prosecutor* capable of generating validated evidence across borders.
SPO-ET rests on **three pillars** working in parallel:
1. **Scientific Accountability** — Independent, randomized audits of high-impact technologies meeting scale/risk thresholds.
2. **Prosecutorial Validation** — Conversion of audit results into admissible evidence packages for DG COMP, DG CONNECT, EPPO, and national prosecutors.
3. **Strategic Substitution** — Deployment of open-source or interoperable alternatives whenever firms retaliate against lawful EU measures.
Each pillar strengthens the others through what E-SOFIA terms **Parallel Incrementalism**: establishing all three at once but allowing each to mature at its own pace.
---
### **ASCII Diagram — The Three-Pillar Model**
```
```
*Science → Law → Continuity* — a closed loop that converts observation into protection.
---
## **3. Strategic Context: Why Now**
Digital power has become geopolitical power.
Algorithmic systems decide what citizens see, how markets clear, and which infrastructures bend or break under stress.
Europe’s *Digital Services Act* and *Digital Markets Act* are world-leading but reactive; they set behavioural rules yet lack the scientific muscle and evidentiary pipelines to prove systemic harm quickly enough.
Without institutional foresight, enforcement lags behind disruption.
When a platform manipulates elections, an opaque recommender distorts markets, or a foreign vendor withdraws critical cloud services, Parliament must not wait for aftermath reports—it must already possess the evidence base to act within weeks, not years.
SPO-ET operationalises that foresight.
It converts science into law at European scale.
---
## **4. Mandate and Legal Basis**
SPO-ET will be established as an **independent office of the European Parliament** under an Inter-Institutional Agreement (Art. 295 TFEU).
It will cooperate with the Commission and Council through data-sharing protocols while remaining accountable to Parliament.
**Legal Anchors**
* **Art. 179–190 TFEU** — Research & Innovation Competence
* **Art. 101–109 TFEU** — Competition Law
* **Art. 295 TFEU** — Inter-Institutional Agreements
* **Art. 257 TFEU** — Specialised Judicial Chambers
* **Digital Services Act / Digital Markets Act** — Behavioural obligations and audit triggers
* **Charter of Fundamental Rights / GDPR** — Privacy and proportionality safeguards
Together, these provisions allow Parliament to host a foresight and evidence office without treaty change.
---
## **5. Institutional Design**
### 5.1 Scientific Accountability
Randomised, risk-weighted audits conducted by EU research consortia; results logged under strict reproducibility and chain-of-custody standards; meta-data stored in a **Secure Reproducibility Vault** for judicial re-execution.
Outputs become public within 90 days, redacted only for active investigations or national security.
### 5.2 Prosecutorial Validation
A Judicial Support Unit translates technical evidence into legal form: affidavits, dataset hashes, reproducible models.
Evidence protocols are harmonised with EPPO and DG COMP standards.
Validated dossiers trigger referrals to competent authorities and, where cross-border harm is evident, coordinated EU actions.
### 5.3 Strategic Substitution
When corporations retaliate or obstruct lawful oversight—by cutting off services, withholding APIs, or leveraging proprietary choke-points—the **Strategic Substitution Division** deploys pre-funded open-source or interoperable alternatives.
Its mandate: ensure continuity, not punishment.
Once compliance is restored, substitution sunsets.
---
## **6. Governance and Safeguards**
**Oversight Board** — Chaired by Parliament; includes ERC, Court of Auditors, DG COMP/DG CONNECT (observers), EPPO liaison, civil-society representatives.
Approves priorities, audits budgets, reviews rights compliance.
**Scientific Council** — Rotating panel of independent academics ensuring methodological integrity; may veto protocols that fail reproducibility standards.
**Judicial Safeguards** — All actions subject to proportionality review and judicial appeal; individuals and firms retain access to EU and national courts.
**Transparency** — Every study and contract published (except protected investigations) within 90 days; full funding disclosures required.
---
## **7. Implementation via Parallel Incrementalism**
| Phase | Years | Core Deliverables |
| --------------------------- | ----- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **I. Pilot & Secretariat** | 1–2 | SPO-ET Secretariat; Judicial Support Unit; 6–8 pilot audits; initial Substitution tests. |
| **II. Agency Elevation** | 3–4 | Statutory office under Art. 295 IIA; possible Technology and Data Court (Art. 257). |
| **III. Union-wide Rollout** | 5 + | National SPO-ET units co-funded by Member States; European Reproducibility Hub. |
**Budget Envelope:** €650 million (Phase I–II), transitioning to dedicated multi-annual funding line integrated with the Digital Europe Programme and the EU Judiciary budget.
---
## **8. Comparative Precedent**
SPO-ET stands where other EU innovations began:
* **EPPO** — Proof of cross-border prosecutorial coordination.
* **ECHA / EMA** — Science-law interfaces validating health and chemical data.
* **JRC / EDPS** — Technical competence and data protection partnership models.
What differs is ambition: SPO-ET fuses these functions into a single loop from science to enforcement.
---
## **9. Anticipating Resistance**
Large platforms will litigate, delay, and lobby.
SPO-ET’s design counters this through legal precision and procedural speed.
**Tactic → Countermeasure**
* *Litigation delay* → Fast-track judicial channels, ETDC timelocks.
* *Lobbying narratives* → Mandatory lobbying disclosures + public performance metrics.
* *Data secrecy claims* → Secure forensic channels protecting trade secrets without blocking audit.
* *Service withdrawal* → Automatic Strategic Substitution deployment.
Transparency is the antidote to capture.
---
## **10. Conclusion**
SPO-ET turns foresight into institution.
It aligns Parliament’s democratic mandate with Europe’s scientific strength and legal tradition.
It declares that **evidence, not influence, is the measure of sovereignty**.
In the long race between imagination and catastrophe, Europe chooses foresight.
# **Appendix A — Technical Annex for the Commission**
*Deep-geek priorities, implementation channels, and cross-DG interfaces*
The Commission’s strength is its technical and legal capacity; this annex proposes concrete cooperation and research interfaces that allow SPO-ET to plug directly into existing structures without duplication.
---
### **A1. Core technical priorities**
1. **Algorithmic Provenance Framework (APF)**
*Objective:* establish cryptographically signed provenance for all major algorithmic updates used in high-impact systems.
*Mechanism:* JRC develops a distributed registry of “model lineage ledgers” accessible to SPO-ET auditors and national authorities.
*Outcome:* reproducibility, liability traceability, and the ability to reconstruct systemic harm in judicial settings.
2. **European Reproducibility Lab Network (ERLN)**
*Partners:* JRC, DG CONNECT, ERC-funded labs.
*Purpose:* standardised re-execution environments for forensic replication of AI and algorithmic audits.
*Deliverable:* containerised “forensic notebooks” verified by digital signatures, admissible in court.
3. **Audit Data Access Protocol (ADAP)**
*Function:* controlled data-sharing mechanism under GDPR Article 49 (5) allowing secure transfer for scientific audits.
*Lead:* DG JUST + EDPS.
*Benefit:* reduces friction between privacy and oversight mandates.
4. **Platform Risk Scoring System (PRSS)**
*Goal:* early-warning system ranking technologies by systemic-risk indicators (disinformation spread, market foreclosure, civic dependency).
*Inspiration:* ESRB systemic-risk dashboards; built jointly by JRC & DG FISMA.
5. **Open Strategic Substitution Catalogue (OSSC)**
*Role:* maintain EU-vetted open-source stacks (identity, payment, cloud, messaging) deployable within 30 days of vendor retaliation.
*Operator:* DG CONNECT + CNECT-H2 with Parliament oversight.
*Note:* OSSC is resilience infrastructure, not industrial policy.
---
### **A2. Data-exchange and integration priorities**
| Interface | Purpose | Lead DG | Legal Hook |
| ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------ | ------- | ------------------- |
| EPPO ↔ SPO-ET | Evidence hand-off; mutual forensic standards | JUST | Art. 4(3) TEU |
| DG COMP ↔ SPO-ET | Antitrust evidence, algorithmic collusion models | COMP | Art. 101–109 TFEU |
| DG CONNECT ↔ SPO-ET | Platform risk mapping, DSA/DMA compliance | CONNECT | Reg. 2022/2065–1925 |
| EDPS ↔ SPO-ET | Privacy oversight, DPIA templates | JUST | GDPR Arts. 35–49 |
| JRC ↔ SPO-ET | Technical reproducibility infrastructure | RTD/JRC | Art. 179–190 TFEU |
These channels should be codified in the initial Inter-Institutional Agreement to make SPO-ET immediately interoperable.
---
### **A3. Operational priorities for DGs**
1. **DG COMP** — integrate algorithmic-collusion detection tools (cartel simulations, pricing-bot monitoring).
2. **DG CONNECT** — co-develop real-time “trust dashboards” visualising systemic-risk metrics to Parliament and the public.
3. **DG JUST** — draft admissibility guidelines for scientific digital evidence.
4. **DG RTD** — include foresight-in-governance research in Horizon Europe calls.
5. **DG DEFIS** — ensure strategic-substitution interoperability with defence-critical supply chains.
---
### **A4. Early pilot candidates**
| Pilot Theme | Lead Partner | Expected Outcome |
| ---------------------------------- | ----------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Recommender System Bias Audit** | DG CONNECT + ERC Lab | EU-wide benchmark on disinformation exposure differentials |
| **Cloud Exit Continuity Test** | DG CNECT H2 + OSSC team | Verified ability to mirror essential cloud functions within 30 days |
| **Algorithmic Collusion Modeling** | DG COMP + EPPO | Template for digital-market antitrust prosecutions |
| **AI in Critical Infrastructure** | DG ENER + DG DEFIS | Cyber-resilience audit tied to NIS2 Directive |
| **E-Health Data Portability** | DG SANTE + EDPS | Privacy-safe data-mobility framework |
Each pilot doubles as a political proof-of-concept demonstrating Parliament-Commission synergy.
---
# **Appendix B — Draft Inter-Institutional Agreement (IIA) Clauses**
These model clauses give legal texture to Article 295 TFEU authority while maintaining institutional balance.
---
### **Article 1 — Establishment and Mandate**
1. The European Parliament, the Council and the Commission agree to establish the *Scientific Prosecutor’s Office for Emerging Technology (SPO-ET)* as an independent office of the European Parliament tasked with generating scientifically validated evidence on systemic technological harms affecting the Union.
2. SPO-ET shall cooperate with Commission Directorates-General and Member State authorities through formal data-sharing and referral protocols consistent with Union law.
---
### **Article 2 — Functions and Cooperation**
1. SPO-ET shall:
* Conduct independent audits of high-impact technologies;
* Produce validated, admissible evidence packages;
* Refer findings to competent authorities and coordinate follow-up.
2. The Commission and Member States shall ensure timely administrative and judicial handling of such referrals, applying expedited procedures where feasible.
3. The Office shall operate under parliamentary oversight, ensuring transparency, proportionality and respect for fundamental rights.
---
### **Article 3 — Reporting and Review**
1. SPO-ET shall present an **annual report** to the European Parliament, summarising audits performed, referrals issued, and recommendations made.
2. Every three years, the Court of Auditors and the European Research Council shall conduct an independent evaluation of SPO-ET’s scientific and fiscal integrity.
3. The signatory institutions shall review the Agreement within five years to assess the need for statutory agency status or treaty update.
---
# **Appendix C — Next-Generation Research & Foresight Priorities**
Europe’s long-term advantage lies in institutionalising curiosity.
The following research themes, drawn from the combined foresight of JRC, ERC, and independent experts, outline where Commission funding and parliamentary attention will yield the highest sovereignty dividend.
---
### **C1. Algorithmic Archaeology**
*Goal:* reconstruct, archive, and interpret historical versions of major AI models and recommender systems.
*Rationale:* regulatory memory must include how models evolve; understanding prior weights and training data is key to forensic accountability.
*Lead DGs:* RTD + CONNECT + JRC.
*Expected Outcome:* an EU-maintained “Model History Repository” to trace the genealogy of algorithmic influence.
---
### **C2. Ethics of Synthetic Foresight**
*Goal:* build frameworks to evaluate AI systems that generate predictions or social simulations for policymaking.
*Rationale:* as predictive AI becomes embedded in government planning, Europe must define epistemic limits and human-in-the-loop rules.
*Lead DGs:* RTD + JUST + EPSC.
*Outcome:* a White Book on Responsible Predictive Governance.
---
### **C3. Forensic AI Toolchain Certification**
*Goal:* certify software stacks used for audit, replication, and evidence generation.
*Rationale:* without toolchain integrity, reproducibility collapses under challenge.
*Lead DGs:* CNECT + JRC.
*Outcome:* pan-EU catalogue of validated forensic toolchains, each with cryptographic attestation.
---
### **C4. Quantum and Post-Quantum Auditability**
*Goal:* ensure that future cryptographic transitions do not break evidence chains.
*Rationale:* long-term digital sovereignty demands that judicial archives survive algorithmic obsolescence.
*Lead DGs:* DEFIS + JRC + DIGIT.
*Outcome:* standards for post-quantum evidentiary preservation.
---
### **C5. Socio-Technical Legitimacy Metrics**
*Goal:* quantify public trust in algorithmic governance and oversight institutions.
*Rationale:* legitimacy is the ultimate variable in democratic technology governance.
*Lead DGs:* COMM + RTD + LIBE Committee partnership.
*Outcome:* biennial “European Algorithmic Trust Index”.
---
### **C6. Digital Commons and Substitution Ecosystems**
*Goal:* sustain open-source infrastructures that underpin Strategic Substitution.
*Rationale:* resilience cannot rely on ad-hoc volunteers; these commons must be funded like roads.
*Lead DGs:* CONNECT + COMP + GROW.
*Outcome:* long-term procurement and maintenance pipeline for essential open stacks.
---
### **C7. Neuro-Cognitive Resilience and Media Ecology**
*Goal:* study how sustained algorithmic exposure alters cognition and democratic deliberation.
*Rationale:* civic sovereignty begins in the mind.
*Lead DGs:* SANTE + EDUC + JRC Health Labs.
*Outcome:* cross-disciplinary research programme linking neuroscience, education, and information integrity.
---
# **Closing Reflections — The European Moment**
Europe has always defined civilization not by conquest but by comprehension.
From Lovelace’s insight that imagination and calculation are allies, to Turing’s faith in logic as moral courage, to Clarke’s warning that wisdom without foresight is peril, the European story is the story of turning thought into structure.
SPO-ET is the next chapter in that lineage: **the architecture of foresight**.
Parliament now has before it a chance to make technological governance a living, lawful craft — to ensure that when innovation tests democracy, democracy answers with intelligence, grace, and speed.
As one Doctor of imagination might say, the future is already written; what matters is whether we show up for it.
---
### **About E-SOFIA**
*The European Sovereignty Forum on Innovation and Autonomy (E-SOFIA)* is an independent initiative exploring institutional designs that strengthen Europe’s open strategic autonomy.
This brief draws methodological inspiration from leading European economic and policy institutes but remains entirely independent in authorship.
