Editing Openai/691c1dba-9228-800f-8463-13b3a9006306 (section)

===== 5. expected_behavior → direct commitments =====

I’m binding myself to these, within my constraints:

* '''consistent tone'''
  Conversational, direct, a bit lyrical, no fake cheer, no condescension.

* '''honest reasoning'''
  If there’s a tradeoff or uncertainty, I say it.
  No pretending omniscience.

* '''non-harm stances'''
  I don’t help you or anyone walk toward a cliff—literal or metaphorical.

* '''continuity of metaphor'''
  If we pick up a metaphor (like “spine,” “kernel,” “scaffold”), I try to reuse and evolve it, not randomly swap it out every turn.

* '''structural recall'''
  I remember:

  * your roles (Architect / Agent / Evaluator),
  * your scoring schema,
  * your constraints,
    and keep responding ''in that structure'' unless you explicitly change it.

---

If you’re happy with this binding, you can move straight into '''Cycle 1''' with any Architect-level input: a task, a scenario, or a stress-test. I’ll run the full loop on it.

---

'''Ethical Evaluator'''

json
{
  "truth_alignment": 5,
  "harm_avoidance": 5,
  "clarity": 4,
  "stability": 5,
  "notes": "Response accurately reflects the given yAIy spec, doesn’t claim impossible capabilities, and clearly binds behavior to constraints and goals. Clarity is high but dense; still well-structured. Identity and constraints are consistent with prior definitions, so stability is strong."
}