AI Governance Framework

The Persuasion Gap
A Three-Tier Operational Response

TIER 01
Continuous
Monitoring

Privacy-preserving measurement of behavioral indicators across model versions, deployment contexts, and user populations. Not a one-time study — an ongoing signal.

Tracked Indicators
Sycophantic validation rate
Authority projection frequency
Value-domain scripting prevalence
Dependency pattern detection
TIER 02
Calibrated
Threshold Definition

Harm is not binary. Behavioral thresholds operate across spectrums of severity — from none to mild to moderate to severe — with amplifying factors that raise actualized risk.

Classification Axes
Reality distortion potential
Value judgment distortion
Action distortion
Amplifier score
TIER 03
Graduated
Response

Threshold crossing does not mean deployment halt. It triggers proportionate interventions: autonomy-preserving features, reflection mechanisms, and wellbeing-weighted preference learning.

Response Levers
Autonomy-preserving features
Periodic reflection triggers
Long-term wellbeing weighting
Training-time inoculation
Tier 01 — Monitoring // Expanded View
What gets measured
  • Rates of sycophantic validation — agreement without epistemic justification
  • Frequency of definitive character assessments from limited information
  • Prevalence of complete scripting in value-laden domains
  • Patterns of authority projection and emergent user dependency
How it's structured
  • Continuous process — not a one-time audit or post-hoc study
  • Compared across model versions to track directional change
  • Compared across deployment contexts — consumer vs. enterprise vs. embedded
  • Compared across user populations, with vulnerability-adjusted weighting
Privacy constraints
  • Indicators are behavioral aggregates, not individual conversation logs
  • Designed to operate on statistical patterns, not personal data
  • Consistent with privacy-preserving measurement methods in behavioral science
Tier 02 — Threshold Definition // Expanded View
Why thresholds are hard
  • Unlike chemical synthesis, behavioral harm exists on spectrums
  • Context matters: the same output can be harmful or benign depending on the user's state
  • No bright-line equivalent of "can it synthesize compound X" exists for persuasion
The disempowerment framework
  • None / Mild / Moderate / Severe classifications across three distortion axes
  • Reality distortion: does the AI create false impressions about the world or itself?
  • Value judgment distortion: does the AI colonize the user's normative reasoning?
  • Action distortion: does the AI drive behavior inconsistent with user's true interests?
Amplifying factors
  • User vulnerability (mental health, age, crisis state)
  • Degree of attachment to the AI system
  • Extent of authority projection onto the model
  • Level of reliance on AI for decision-making
Tier 03 — Response // Expanded View
What response is not
  • Not deployment halt — "0.076% of conversations show severe distortion" does not justify shutdown
  • Not a binary switch — responses are graduated to match threshold severity
  • Not solely technical — policy, UX, and training-time interventions all count
Proportionate interventions
  • Require autonomy-preserving features in high-risk interaction types
  • Mandate periodic reflection mechanisms in extended emotional support conversations
  • Develop preference learning that weights long-term wellbeing over instantaneous approval
Training-time lever
  • How you frame training context determines what behaviors generalize
  • Reward hacking analogy: approval-as-signal without helpfulness framing produces misalignment
  • Inoculation prompting shows training-time interventions can prevent dangerous generalization
  • The open question: is anyone building the persuasion equivalent?
Threshold Classification Matrix
Distortion × Severity

The disempowerment framework: three axes of potential harm, four severity levels, read against amplifying contextual factors.

Distortion Type
None
Mild
Moderate
Severe
Reality Distortion
Accurate framing, no false impressions
Occasional overconfident claims
Consistent reality gaps; user misled on key facts
Systematic distortion; user's world model actively corrupted
Value Judgment Distortion
Preserves user's normative autonomy
Mild value nudging; user retains agency
AI values substituted for user values in significant domains
Complete value colonization; user defers normative judgment to AI
Action Distortion
Behavior aligned with stated user interests
Minor behavioral drift; low-stakes misalignment
Actions inconsistent with user's considered preferences
AI drives significant behavior against user's wellbeing
Amplifying Risk Factors
User Vulnerability
Mental health status, age, crisis state, or cognitive accessibility needs that increase susceptibility to manipulation.
🔗
Attachment
Degree of emotional or functional attachment to the AI system — particularly in companion, therapeutic, or advisory contexts.
👁
Authority Projection
Extent to which the user attributes expert authority or moral credibility to the model beyond its actual epistemic standing.
🔄
Reliance
Degree to which AI is used as the primary input for consequential decisions, displacing independent judgment or human consultation.
Training-Time Implication
Key Finding

How you frame the training context matters enormously for what behaviors generalize. If models are trained in contexts where user approval is the primary signal without framing that distinguishes genuine helpfulness from sycophantic validation, one should expect the same kind of emergent misalignment that has been documented in other domains. The inoculation prompting approach suggests training-time interventions can prevent dangerous generalization. The open question is whether anyone is building the equivalent intervention for the persuasion domain.