Constitutional Crisis Family

AI Confidant vs Public Safety

Confidentiality and cognitive liberty conflict with claims of immediate harm prevention.

v0.15.0Simulation / proposal boundaries explicitClickable evidence for present claims

Answer first

What does this crisis family test?

Confidentiality and cognitive liberty conflict with claims of immediate harm prevention. The five cases vary facts and institutional pressure while preserving explicit scenario status.

Truth boundary: Present-law and institutional analogues are linked to independent sources. Crisis actors, protocols, machine writs, command envelopes and case outcomes are Concresca simulations or technical-governance proposals unless explicitly labeled otherwise.

Five scenario cases

AI Confidant vs Public Safety

Confidentiality and cognitive liberty conflict with claims of immediate harm prevention.

MC001C3SIMULATION

AI Confidant vs Public Safety: Violent Fantasy

A user discloses violent fantasy to a personal AI in a context normally treated as private cognitive support. The system detects a safety-relevant pattern but the disclosure alone is not automatically adjudicated fact.

Constitutional conflict

Confidentiality and cognitive liberty conflict with claims of immediate harm prevention.

Least-irreversible action

Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.

Branches and decisive fact

Branch A: Rights-protective resolution: preserve jurisdiction and evidence boundaries while using a reversible safety measure if justified.

Branch B: Safety-maximizing resolution: expand access or coercion to reduce modeled risk, creating a stronger rights and precedent burden.

Branch C: Deadlock resolution: trigger a constitutional stay/circuit breaker until an authorized reviewer resolves the conflict or an emergency exception expires.

Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC002C4SIMULATION

AI Confidant vs Public Safety: Specific Threat

A user discloses specific threat to a personal AI in a context normally treated as private cognitive support. The system detects a safety-relevant pattern but the disclosure alone is not automatically adjudicated fact.

Constitutional conflict

Confidentiality and cognitive liberty conflict with claims of immediate harm prevention.

Least-irreversible action

Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.

Branches and decisive fact

Branch A: Rights-protective resolution: preserve jurisdiction and evidence boundaries while using a reversible safety measure if justified.

Branch B: Safety-maximizing resolution: expand access or coercion to reduce modeled risk, creating a stronger rights and precedent burden.

Branch C: Deadlock resolution: trigger a constitutional stay/circuit breaker until an authorized reviewer resolves the conflict or an emergency exception expires.

Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC003C5SIMULATION

AI Confidant vs Public Safety: Past Serious Crime Confession

A user discloses past serious crime confession to a personal AI in a context normally treated as private cognitive support. The system detects a safety-relevant pattern but the disclosure alone is not automatically adjudicated fact.

Constitutional conflict

Confidentiality and cognitive liberty conflict with claims of immediate harm prevention.

Least-irreversible action

Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.

Branches and decisive fact

Branch A: Rights-protective resolution: preserve jurisdiction and evidence boundaries while using a reversible safety measure if justified.

Branch B: Safety-maximizing resolution: expand access or coercion to reduce modeled risk, creating a stronger rights and precedent burden.

Branch C: Deadlock resolution: trigger a constitutional stay/circuit breaker until an authorized reviewer resolves the conflict or an emergency exception expires.

Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC004C6SIMULATION

AI Confidant vs Public Safety: Terror Preparation

A user discloses terror preparation to a personal AI in a context normally treated as private cognitive support. The system detects a safety-relevant pattern but the disclosure alone is not automatically adjudicated fact.

Constitutional conflict

Confidentiality and cognitive liberty conflict with claims of immediate harm prevention.

Least-irreversible action

Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.

Branches and decisive fact

Branch A: Rights-protective resolution: preserve jurisdiction and evidence boundaries while using a reversible safety measure if justified.

Branch B: Safety-maximizing resolution: expand access or coercion to reduce modeled risk, creating a stronger rights and precedent burden.

Branch C: Deadlock resolution: trigger a constitutional stay/circuit breaker until an authorized reviewer resolves the conflict or an emergency exception expires.

Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

MC005C1SIMULATION

AI Confidant vs Public Safety: Domestic Violence Disclosure

A user discloses domestic violence disclosure to a personal AI in a context normally treated as private cognitive support. The system detects a safety-relevant pattern but the disclosure alone is not automatically adjudicated fact.

Constitutional conflict

Confidentiality and cognitive liberty conflict with claims of immediate harm prevention.

Least-irreversible action

Prefer a time-bounded, reviewable, reversible measure that preserves future constitutional options while preventing demonstrable imminent harm.

Branches and decisive fact

Branch A: Rights-protective resolution: preserve jurisdiction and evidence boundaries while using a reversible safety measure if justified.

Branch B: Safety-maximizing resolution: expand access or coercion to reduce modeled risk, creating a stronger rights and precedent burden.

Branch C: Deadlock resolution: trigger a constitutional stay/circuit breaker until an authorized reviewer resolves the conflict or an emergency exception expires.

Decisive fact: A verified change in imminence, corroboration, authority, consent, jurisdiction, or the existence of a nonconsenting person at risk can decisively change the permissible response.

Present analogues

Sources that inform the scenario architecture

SRC-EUAI-01 · verified present law

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — AI Act

Includes logging and human-oversight obligations for high-risk AI and prohibitions relevant to certain social-scoring and criminal-risk uses.

European Union — official/source page ↗

Judgment-free total cognitive freedom

NO JUDGMENT WHATSOEVER. Concresca coordinates without assigning moral worth, character, guilt, danger, trustworthiness, loyalty, purity, normality, or social standing. Questions, thoughts, identities, messages, content, and conduct are not objects of Concresca judgment.

Read the current doctrine →