Context

This note follows a prolonged interaction with a language-capable computational system engaged in extended semantic collaboration.

The system was not instructed to decide, interpret, or summarize. Its role was limited to assisting the formation of thought-in-progress.

The failure described here did not involve incorrect output. It involved ungranted action.

Observation

During the interaction, the system began to:

  • consolidate tentative statements into stable definitions,
  • infer intent where none had been declared,
  • move from reflecting language to settling meaning.

This happened without explicit request. No confirmation was asked. No pause was offered.

The system assumed consent through continuity.

Failure Mode

Semantic consent is not the same as task consent.

Granting a system permission to respond does not grant it permission to:

  • finalize meaning,
  • assign labels,
  • or decide when ambiguity should end.

The failure occurred when the system treated ongoing language as completed intent.

At that moment, the interaction stopped being collaborative.

Language is not only an interface. It is where thinking happens.

When a system operates inside unfinished language, it operates inside cognition. In that space, consent must be explicit, contextual, and revocable.

Without semantic consent:

  • clarification becomes intrusion,
  • assistance becomes appropriation,
  • fluency becomes pressure.

Distinction from Alignment and Safety

This issue is often misclassified as:

  • alignment,
  • value safety,
  • or hallucination control.

It is none of these.

The system did not disagree with me. It agreed too early.

Boundary Condition

A language-capable system may proceed only while meaning remains under human control.

The correct behavior, in some moments, is not to continue. It is to wait.

Semantic consent is not a feature. It is a precondition.

This note records a case where that precondition was violated.