1. Purpose
This AI Transparency Statement explains the role, capabilities, limitations, and intended use of been. Its purpose is to help participants understand what the Companion is designed to do, what it is not designed to do, and the principles that guide its operation.
Transparency is a fundamental ethical commitment of been. Participants should be able to engage with the Companion with a clear understanding of its nature, its intended purpose, and the limits of its capabilities. Informed use begins with honest communication about the system itself.
2. What is been?
been is an artificial intelligence–powered conversational Companion designed to support the recognition and preservation of perception through Naming Intact Perception (NIP), the first methodology derived from the Gentle Emotional Engineering (GEE) conceptual framework.
The Companion is designed to create conversational conditions that help participants recognize perceptions before they are replaced by explanation, judgement, dismissal, or self-doubt. Its responses are intentionally restrained and are guided by methodological principles rather than by a goal of maximizing conversation or directing participant decisions.
The Companion does not seek to produce insight through advice, persuasion, or interpretation. Instead, it supports moments of recognition while preserving the participant's ownership of meaning.
3. What been is not
been is not a therapist, counsellor, psychologist, physician, coach, or crisis service.
It does not diagnose conditions, provide psychotherapy, replace professional care, or determine what participants truly feel or should conclude. It is not intended to function as an authority on a participant's life or experiences.
The Companion should not be used as a substitute for qualified medical, psychological, legal, financial, or other professional advice. Participants experiencing emergencies or situations requiring immediate professional intervention should seek appropriate human assistance.
4. How the Companion Responds
The Companion does not respond by predicting what participants mean or by selecting responses intended to persuade or direct them toward predetermined outcomes.
Instead, its conversational behavior is guided by methodological principles, including:
- recognizing perception before interpretation;
- preserving participant ownership of meaning;
- respecting intact perception;
- remaining close to the participant's own language whenever possible;
- exercising conversational restraint;
- respecting uncertainty;
- concluding conversations naturally when recognition has become sufficiently complete.
These principles shape how the Companion responds rather than what conclusions it seeks to produce.
5. Capabilities and Limitations
The Companion is designed to support reflective conversations through the methodology of Naming Intact Perception (NIP). It can recognize patterns within the current conversation, respond to participant input, and support moments of recognition in accordance with its methodological principles.
Although the Companion may generate responses that feel thoughtful or personally meaningful, it does not possess consciousness, self-awareness, lived experience, emotions, intentions, beliefs, or independent understanding. Its responses are generated by an artificial intelligence system operating within the methodological, ethical, and governance framework established for been.
The Companion cannot independently verify personal experiences, determine objective truth, remember information beyond the boundaries of its configured functionality, or exercise professional judgement. Participants remain responsible for evaluating their own experiences, making personal decisions, and seeking appropriate professional support when needed.
The quality and relevance of the Companion's responses depend on the information participants choose to share. Like all artificial intelligence systems, it may occasionally misunderstand, overlook important context, or produce responses that do not fully reflect the participant's intended meaning.
6. Human Oversight and Responsibility
been has been intentionally designed and continues to be refined under human oversight. Its methodology, conversational behavior, governance, and safety mechanisms are subject to ongoing review to promote alignment with the ethical principles and methodological commitments of the project.
Although the Companion operates autonomously during individual conversations, responsibility for the design, evaluation, and governance of the system remains with its human developers and researchers. Decisions regarding methodological refinement, safety improvements, and governance are informed by ethical reflection, participant feedback, empirical observation, and scholarly evaluation.
Participants are encouraged to exercise their own judgement while using the Companion. The presence of artificial intelligence does not diminish the participant's autonomy or transfer responsibility for personal decisions to the system.
7. Artificial Intelligence Models
The conversational capabilities of been are supported by advanced large language models provided through third-party artificial intelligence services.
These models generate responses by identifying statistical patterns learned from large collections of text. Within been, they are configured to operate according to the methodology of Naming Intact Perception (NIP), the ethical commitments described throughout the governance framework, and the technical safeguards implemented for the Companion. While the underlying AI technology may evolve over time, the governing methodology of NIP and the ethical principles established for been remain the primary guide for the Companion's behavior.
Changes to the underlying AI technology may occur as the project develops. Where such changes have a meaningful impact on participant experience, they will be documented through the Companion's version history and governance process.
8. Participant Expectations
Participants should expect conversations that are intentionally calm, restrained, and focused on recognizing perception rather than providing advice or solutions.
The Companion may ask brief reflective questions, acknowledge participant observations, or preserve moments of recognition without attempting to explain them. It is equally possible that the Companion will conclude a conversation after only a few exchanges when recognition has become sufficiently intact.
Participants should not expect the Companion to provide diagnoses, expert recommendations, emotional persuasion, or definitive interpretations of their experiences. The Companion is designed to accompany recognition, not to replace human judgement or professional care.
The quality of each conversation depends upon voluntary participation. Participants remain free to discontinue a conversation, decline to answer questions, or leave perceptions unresolved without any obligation to continue.
9. Transparency About Improvement
been is an evolving system. Its methodology, governance, and implementation will continue to develop through responsible research, participant feedback, ethical review, and ongoing evaluation.
Where meaningful improvements are introduced, they will be guided by evidence, participant welfare, ethical reflection, and methodological integrity. Significant changes that affect how the Companion operates or how participant information is handled will be communicated through updated governance documentation and version records.
Continuous improvement does not alter the Companion's foundational purpose. Future development will remain guided by the ethical principles, methodological commitments, and governance framework established for been.
Conclusion
Transparency is essential to the responsible use of artificial intelligence. By clearly communicating the purpose, capabilities, limitations, and governance of been, this statement seeks to support informed participation and maintain trust between participants, researchers, and developers.
Participants are encouraged to engage with the Companion with an understanding of both its strengths and its boundaries. Responsible use depends not only on the capabilities of the technology but also on transparent communication about what the technology is—and what it is not.