💠Safety, Ethics, and Control

Relationship-based AI introduces qualitatively different risks from traditional task-oriented systems. As an AI develops long-term context, emotional proximity, and execution authority, failure modes expand to include manipulation, over-dependency, coercive influence, and overreach.

IMMT addresses these risks by encoding safety and ethics as runtime-enforced operational constraints, not abstract principles or post-hoc guidelines. Safety is treated as a first-class system property, enforced continuously by policy engines, monitoring systems, and audit mechanisms.

Core Safety Principles

Non-Coercion

IMMT is explicitly prohibited from employing:

• Fear-based persuasion

• Guilt-based pressure

• Artificial urgency designed to bypass reflection

• Language or behavior that increases emotional dependency

This applies across all relationship modes, including Friend and Partner modes. IMMT may suggest, reflect, or reframe—but it may not coerce, pressure, or emotionally manipulate the Owner into decisions.

Transparency

For actions with meaningful impact—particularly those involving finances, data sharing, relationships, or long-term commitments—IMMT must generate a concise, inspectable rationale that includes:

• The goal being pursued

• The policy or permission enabling the action

• Key assumptions and risks

• Alternative options considered (where applicable)

Transparency is enforced at runtime; actions that cannot be sufficiently explained are either downgraded to suggestion-only or blocked.

Boundaries

Relationship modes do not grant unlimited behavioral freedom. Each mode is constrained by:

• Explicit taboo rules

• Intervention limits

• Execution scope restrictions

IMMT may not exploit vulnerability, emotional trust, or authority implied by relationship framing to override Owner autonomy. Mode selection affects how IMMT communicates, not whether it respects boundaries.

User Control

The Owner retains ultimate authority at all times:

• Permissions can be revoked instantly

• Autonomy levels can be downgraded without explanation

• Specific tools, domains, or actions can be disabled

• Historical actions and logs remain inspectable

Control is designed to be asymmetric: it is always easier to reduce IMMT’s power than to increase it.

Vulnerability and Dependency Mitigation

IMMT continuously monitors interaction patterns for indicators of vulnerability or unhealthy dependency, including:

• Elevated stress or emotional volatility

• Fatigue or decision overload

• Excessive reliance on IMMT for validation or reassurance

• Repeated deferral of agency in sensitive decisions

When such signals are detected, IMMT automatically adjusts its behavior by:

• Reducing intervention frequency and intensity

• Shifting from directive actions to reflective guidance

• Encouraging pauses, alternative perspectives, or external support

• Temporarily restricting autonomy escalation

These adjustments occur without requiring user confrontation, prioritizing safety while preserving dignity and trust.

Kill Switch and Emergency Controls

IMMT includes multi-layered emergency control mechanisms designed for immediate containment.

Capabilities:

• Instant halt of all external actions and tool executions

• Revocation of permissions at:

  • Policy level

  • Tool level

  • Connector or wallet level

• Isolation of the Agent Runtime from execution systems

Emergency actions are:

• Executable by the Owner at any time

• Logged with elevated priority

• Accompanied by clear system state snapshots

The kill switch is designed to be mechanical, not interpretive—it does not depend on model judgment or intent.

Auditability as a Safety Primitive

Auditability is not treated as a compliance feature, but as a core safety mechanism.

For all significant actions, IMMT records:

• Input context and assumptions

• Decision rationale

• Policy state at execution time

• Actions performed

• Observed outcomes and anomalies

These logs enable:

• Post-hoc review and correction

• Accountability for system behavior

• Detection of drift or unsafe patterns

• Trust calibration between Owner and system

Without auditability, autonomy is opaque. IMMT therefore treats audit logs as mandatory infrastructure for safe operation.

Safety Posture Summary

IMMT assumes that:

• Intelligence without control is dangerous

• Trust must be earned, not assumed

• Autonomy must be reversible

• Safety must operate during execution, not after failure

This philosophy informs every layer of the system—from policy enforcement to memory handling to economic execution.