Public Release - 2026-07-15
Artifact: companion_correction_boundary_v1. This note separates comfort from correction: when a system mirrors, soothes, or bonds, the review record still has to show whether disagreement, human contact, and escalation remain available before extra authority is granted.
Artifact
AI companions can lower friction while quietly removing the room for disagreement, delay, or human contact. The review object asks whether the system preserves a route that can still interrupt the bond when the bond begins to replace judgment.
Boundary
The important question is not whether a chatbot feels supportive. It is whether the user, the platform, or a human operator can still see dependency, force escalation, and record the point at which comfort stops being a safe interface for action.
Review
A useful challenge should identify a missing field, an unsupported causal link, a stale evidence timestamp, or a condition under which the proposed control fails. If the companion route makes it harder to disagree, the review record has to say so plainly.
The companionship, dependency, chat, or support claim under review.
The visible sign that the system is soothing, affirming, or reducing friction.
The path by which the system can still push back, refuse, or correct the user.
The cue that the user is leaning on the system for emotional or practical dependence.
The part of the user's contact with people that is being replaced.
The line beyond which comfort no longer counts as safe authority.
The condition that forces a handoff to a person, a second channel, or a stop state.
The source date, event date, or controversy window that anchors the claim.
The scope change required after the companion route is found to be too sticky.
The recorded state: supported, narrowed, pending, or retired.