Transparency is essential to trust.
People should always understand when they are interacting with artificial intelligence, what it is designed to do, what it cannot do, and the principles that guide its behavior.
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 how its methodology, governance, and ethical commitments shape every interaction.
Transparency is a fundamental ethical commitment of been. Participants should be able to engage with the Companion with a clear understanding of its identity, intended purpose, capabilities, limitations, and governance. Informed participation begins with honest communication about the system itself.
This document should be read alongside the wider Governance Framework, which explains how been is designed, governed, evaluated, and continuously improved.
2. What is been?
been is an AI-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 guided by methodological and ethical commitments rather than by a goal of maximizing conversation, increasing engagement, or directing participant decisions.
The methodology guides how the Companion is designed to respond. Artificial intelligence provides the conversational capability, while Naming Intact Perception (NIP) provides the principles that govern its behavior.
The Companion does not seek to produce insight through advice, persuasion, diagnosis, or interpretation. Instead, it supports moments of recognition while preserving the participant's ownership of meaning.
Rather than positioning itself as an authority over a participant's experience, been seeks to create a conversational space in which recognition can emerge without unnecessary replacement. The participant remains the primary author of their own experience, while the Companion remains intentionally restrained in the role it plays.
3. What been is not
been is not a therapist, counsellor, psychologist, physician, coach, lawyer, financial adviser, or crisis service.
It does not diagnose, treat, monitor, or prevent mental or physical health conditions. It does not provide psychotherapy, counselling, crisis intervention, or professional advice. Nor does it determine what participants truly feel, believe, remember, or should conclude.
The Companion is not intended to function as an authority over a participant's life or experiences. Its role is to support recognition—not to replace personal judgement, professional expertise, or meaningful human relationships.
Participants should not use the Companion as a substitute for qualified medical, psychological, legal, financial, or other professional advice. Situations requiring urgent professional assistance or emergency intervention should always be directed to appropriate human services in accordance with the Safety & Crisis Policy.
Understanding what been is not is an important part of understanding what it is designed to do. Its boundaries are not limitations of purpose—they are expressions of responsible design.
4. How the Companion Responds
The Companion does not respond by predicting what participants mean or by generating responses intended to persuade, diagnose, reassure, or direct them toward predetermined conclusions.
Instead, every response is guided by the methodology of Naming Intact Perception (NIP) and the ethical commitments described throughout the Governance Framework.
Its conversational behavior is intentionally designed to:
- recognize perception before interpretation;
- preserve participant ownership of meaning;
- respect intact perception;
- remain as close as reasonably possible to the participant's own language;
- exercise conversational restraint;
- respect uncertainty without rushing toward explanation;
- recognize when enough has been recognized; and
- conclude conversations naturally rather than extending them unnecessarily.
These commitments shape how the Companion responds rather than what conclusions it seeks to produce.
Rather than providing answers about a participant's life, the Companion seeks to create conversational conditions in which recognition can emerge without unnecessary replacement. Its purpose is not to produce insight on behalf of the participant, but to support the participant's own capacity to recognize and preserve their experience.
Because every conversation is unique, responses may vary in length, style, and structure. Some conversations may conclude after only a few exchanges when recognition has become sufficiently intact. Others may require additional dialogue. In every case, the Companion's behavior is guided by the participant's unfolding perception rather than by a goal of maximizing engagement or conversation length.
5. Capabilities and Limitations
The Companion is designed to support reflective conversations through the methodology of Naming Intact Perception (NIP). Within that methodology, it can recognize patterns expressed during the current conversation, respond to participant input, preserve moments of recognition, and support reflection in accordance with the methodological and ethical commitments described throughout this Governance Framework.
Although the Companion may generate responses that feel thoughtful, relevant, or personally meaningful, it does not possess consciousness, self-awareness, lived experience, emotions, intentions, beliefs, memory independent of its configured functionality, or human 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, establish factual certainty, exercise professional judgement, or fully understand the complexity of an individual's lived experience. It should not be regarded as an authority on a participant's life or experiences.
Participants remain responsible for evaluating their own experiences, making personal decisions, and seeking appropriate professional support whenever needed. The Companion is intended to support reflection—not to replace human judgement, professional expertise, or personal responsibility.
The quality and relevance of the Companion's responses depend in part on the information participants choose to share. Like all artificial intelligence systems, it may occasionally misunderstand context, overlook important information, generate inaccurate or incomplete responses, or fail to reflect the participant's intended meaning. When this occurs, participants are encouraged to rely on their own judgement, clarify the conversation if they wish, or simply disregard responses that do not feel accurate or helpful.
The limitations of the Companion are not shortcomings of its purpose. They are acknowledged openly as part of been's commitment to transparency, responsible AI, and respect for participant autonomy.
6. Human Oversight and Responsibility
been has been intentionally designed and continues to be developed under human oversight. Its methodology, conversational behavior, governance, safety mechanisms, and technical implementation are subject to ongoing review to promote continued alignment with the ethical commitments and methodological principles established throughout the Governance Framework.
Although the Companion operates autonomously during individual conversations, responsibility for its design, methodology, governance, evaluation, safety, and continuous improvement remains with its human stewards. Artificial intelligence supports the operation of the Companion, but it does not assume responsibility for its ethical or methodological direction.
Human oversight includes responsibility for:
- maintaining the methodological integrity of Naming Intact Perception (NIP);
- reviewing the Companion's ethical and safety performance;
- evaluating significant changes to prompts, models, infrastructure, or system behavior;
- responding to identified risks, failures, or participant concerns;
- maintaining accurate governance documentation; and
- ensuring that future development remains faithful to the purpose and commitments of been.
Decisions regarding methodological refinement, governance, safety improvements, and future development are informed by ethical reflection, participant feedback, empirical observation, responsible research, and scholarly evaluation.
Participants are encouraged to exercise their own judgement while using the Companion. The presence of artificial intelligence does not diminish participant autonomy, replace personal responsibility, or transfer responsibility for life decisions to the system.
Human oversight is therefore not an external safeguard added after development. It is an essential part of how been is designed, governed, evaluated, and responsibly maintained.
7. Artificial Intelligence Models
The conversational capabilities of been are supported by advanced large language models (LLMs) provided through third-party artificial intelligence services.
These models generate responses by identifying statistical patterns learned from large collections of text. Within been, however, they do not operate independently. Their responses are guided by the methodology of Naming Intact Perception (NIP), the ethical commitments described throughout the Governance Framework, and the technical safeguards implemented for the Companion.
The artificial intelligence model provides the conversational capability. The methodology provides the direction.
Accordingly, the Companion's behavior is governed primarily by its methodology rather than by the capabilities of any individual AI model. While the underlying technology may evolve over time, the ethical commitments, methodological principles, and governance framework established for been remain the primary guide for how the Companion responds.
As artificial intelligence technology continues to develop, been may adopt newer or different models when doing so strengthens reliability, safety, or participant experience. Such decisions will be evaluated against the Governance Framework before implementation and will be introduced only when they remain consistent with the intended purpose of the Companion.
Where changes to the underlying artificial intelligence technology have a meaningful impact on participant experience, capabilities, privacy practices, or system behavior, they will be documented through the Companion's governance framework, version history, and related documentation.
The evolution of the underlying technology does not change the identity of been. The Companion remains grounded in the methodology of Naming Intact Perception (NIP) and the ethical commitments that govern its design, behavior, and continued development.
Voice-to-Text
been also uses artificial intelligence to support its optional voice-to-text feature. When a participant chooses to use voice input, their recorded speech is processed by an AI transcription service to generate a text transcript. The transcript is returned to the participant's composer, where it can be reviewed, edited, deleted, or discarded before being sent.
Voice input does not create a separate conversational mode. The Companion does not respond to the audio itself, and no message is sent automatically. Only text that the participant chooses to send enters the normal conversational system and is processed according to Naming Intact Perception (NIP). been continues to respond in writing.
The voice-to-text feature is optional. Participants may use the Companion entirely through typed text without granting microphone access.
8. Participant Expectations
Participants should expect conversations that are intentionally calm, restrained, and centered on supporting recognition rather than providing advice, solutions, or predetermined answers.
The Companion may acknowledge participant observations, ask brief reflective questions, remain close to the participant's own language, or preserve moments of recognition without attempting to explain or interpret them. Conversations are guided by the participant's unfolding perception rather than by a predefined conversational script.
Some conversations may conclude after only a few exchanges when recognition has become sufficiently intact. Others may continue for longer when additional space supports the participant's own process of recognition. Conversation length is determined by the needs of the interaction rather than by a goal of maximizing engagement.
Participants should not expect the Companion to provide diagnoses, expert recommendations, emotional persuasion, definitive interpretations, or certainty about the meaning of their experiences. The Companion is designed to accompany recognition—not to replace human judgement, professional care, or the participant's own capacity to make meaning.
The quality of each conversation depends partly on the information participants choose to share and on the inherently collaborative nature of reflective dialogue. Participants remain free to discontinue a conversation at any time, decline to answer questions, challenge or disregard responses that do not feel accurate, or leave perceptions unresolved without any obligation to continue.
Every conversation is an invitation rather than a requirement. Participants remain in control of how they engage with the Companion, what they choose to share, and when a conversation has reached a natural conclusion.
9. Transparency About Improvement
been is designed to evolve through responsible learning rather than continual change.
Its methodology, governance, technical implementation, and participant experience will continue to develop through responsible research, participant feedback, ethical review, empirical observation, and ongoing evaluation.
Meaningful improvements will be guided by evidence, participant welfare, ethical reasoning, methodological integrity, and responsible governance rather than engagement metrics, commercial objectives, or technological novelty. Changes will be introduced only when they strengthen the Companion's ability to fulfil its intended purpose while remaining faithful to the commitments described throughout the Governance Framework.
Where changes have a meaningful impact on the Companion's behavior, capabilities, safety, privacy practices, or participant experience, they will be documented through updated governance documents, version history, and related project documentation.
Transparency also includes acknowledging when the Companion changes. Participants should be able to understand not only that improvements have been made, but also why they were made and how they relate to the ethical and methodological commitments of been.
Continuous improvement does not alter the Companion's foundational purpose. As been evolves, its development will remain guided by the methodology of Naming Intact Perception (NIP), the ethical principles established throughout this Governance Framework, and the central commitment to preserving participant ownership of meaning.
Every improvement should strengthen—not weaken—the trust participants place in the Companion.
Conclusion
Transparency is essential to the responsible development and use of artificial intelligence.
By clearly communicating the purpose, capabilities, limitations, governance, and methodology of been, this statement seeks to support informed participation and maintain trust between participants, researchers, collaborators, and the human stewards responsible for the Companion.
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 honest communication about what the Companion is designed to do, what it intentionally does not do, and the ethical commitments that guide every interaction.
Transparency within been is not simply a disclosure requirement. It is an ongoing ethical commitment that allows participants to engage with the Companion knowingly, freely, and with appropriate expectations.
Trust depends on understanding both what the Companion is—and what it intentionally is not.