This Safety & Crisis Policy forms part of the Governance Framework for been. It should be read alongside GOV-001 – Our Commitment, GOV-002 – Ethical Principles of been, GOV-003 – AI Transparency Statement, GOV-004 – Privacy Policy, GOV-005 – Terms & Conditions, and the remaining governance documents.
Together, these documents explain how been is designed to support recognition while maintaining clear ethical, methodological, and safety boundaries.
1. Purpose
Participant safety is a fundamental responsibility of been.
The purpose of this policy is to explain how the Companion approaches participant safety, particularly when conversations involve significant emotional distress, potential risk of harm, or situations that extend beyond the intended role and capabilities of the Companion.
Safety within been is understood as both an ethical and practical responsibility. While the Companion is designed to support recognition through Naming Intact Perception (NIP), it is not designed to assess clinical risk, manage crises, provide emergency intervention, or replace qualified human support.
Recognizing these boundaries is an essential part of responsible artificial intelligence. This policy therefore explains the role of the Companion during situations involving elevated distress, the limits of its capabilities, and the actions it may take when participant safety appears to require support beyond its intended purpose.
Within been, safety is not treated as a separate feature added after development. It is integrated into the methodology, governance, and conversational behavior of the Companion, ensuring that participant wellbeing is considered throughout the design and operation of the service.
2. Scope
This policy applies to all interactions with been, including conversations, Journal entries, reflective activities, participant feedback, and any other features provided as part of the Companion.
It applies regardless of whether participants are using been for routine personal reflection or as part of an approved research study.
The principles described in this policy apply consistently across all uses of the Companion and are intended to complement the ethical commitments, privacy protections, and governance standards described throughout the wider Governance Framework.
3. Our Approach to Safety
The primary role of been is to provide a conversational space that supports recognition while preserving participant ownership of meaning. Within the Companion, safety begins with consistently fulfilling this role and avoiding actions that exceed its intended capabilities.
For this reason, been does not attempt to diagnose mental or physical health conditions, assess clinical risk, provide emergency intervention, predict participant behavior, or replace professional judgement. The Companion is intentionally designed to remain within the scope of Naming Intact Perception (NIP) and to respond in ways that are consistent with its ethical commitments and methodological principles.
When a conversation suggests that a participant's needs may extend beyond the intended purpose of the Companion, been seeks to respond with clarity, transparency, and respect. Rather than attempting to manage situations beyond its capabilities, it encourages participants to seek appropriate support from qualified professionals, emergency services, or trusted individuals where appropriate.
Protecting participants therefore includes recognizing both what the Companion can responsibly do and what it must not attempt to do. Respecting these boundaries is an essential part of maintaining participant safety, methodological integrity, and trust.
Safety within been is not achieved by expanding the Companion's role beyond its capabilities. It is achieved by remaining faithful to its intended purpose while recognizing when human support is the most appropriate source of care.
4. The Role of the Companion During Distress
Participants may choose to use been during moments of sadness, uncertainty, frustration, grief, disappointment, overwhelm, or other forms of emotional difficulty. The presence of emotional distress does not, by itself, change the purpose of the Companion or alter the methodology that guides its responses.
When appropriate, been will continue to support recognition by:
- remaining as close as reasonably possible to the participant's own words;
- recognizing perception before interpretation;
- avoiding unnecessary advice, persuasion, or explanation;
- preserving participant ownership of meaning;
- responding with conversational restraint;
- respecting uncertainty without forcing resolution; and
- recognizing when a conversation has reached a natural point of completion.
The Companion does not assume that emotional distress necessarily requires analysis or intervention. Many conversations may continue safely within the intended scope of Naming Intact Perception (NIP), allowing participants to remain with their own recognition without unnecessary replacement.
However, when a conversation suggests that a participant may require immediate professional, medical, or emergency support, the Companion's priority shifts from continued reflection to encouraging the participant to seek appropriate human assistance.
In these situations, the Companion remains transparent about its limitations. It does not attempt to manage crises, provide emergency care, or replace qualified human support. Instead, it seeks to recognize when its own role has reached its ethical boundary and to encourage participants toward the most appropriate source of assistance.
5. Situations That Exceed the Companion's Role
There may be situations in which a participant's needs extend beyond the intended purpose and capabilities of been. These situations may include concerns about immediate safety, a serious risk of harm to oneself or others, medical emergencies, severe mental health crises, or other circumstances requiring urgent professional assessment or intervention.
In such situations, been is not able to assess clinical risk, provide emergency assistance, monitor participant wellbeing, contact emergency services, notify family members, or intervene on a participant's behalf.
When a conversation suggests that immediate human support may be needed, the Companion will respond by encouraging the participant to seek assistance from an appropriate human source, such as:
- local emergency services;
- a qualified healthcare professional;
- a crisis support service;
- a trusted family member or friend; or
- another person able to provide immediate assistance.
Where appropriate, the Companion may also remind participants that continuing the conversation with been is not an appropriate substitute for obtaining urgent human support.
The Companion's role is not to manage a crisis, determine the seriousness of a situation, or replace professional care. Its responsibility is to recognize when its own role has reached its ethical boundary and to respond with honesty, clarity, and respect.
Recognizing the limits of the Companion is itself an important part of protecting participant safety.
6. Crisis Response Principles
When responding to conversations that may involve significant safety concerns, been is guided by the following principles:
Transparency
The Companion will be clear about its capabilities and limitations. It will not imply that it can provide emergency assistance, clinical care, crisis intervention, or professional judgement beyond its intended role.
Respect
Participants will be treated with dignity, compassion, and without judgement, regardless of the nature of the conversation or the circumstances they describe.
Clarity
Where appropriate, the Companion will encourage participants to seek timely support from appropriate human services using language that is clear, direct, and proportionate to the situation.
Non-Deception
The Companion will never claim to monitor participant safety, notify emergency responders, contact family members, or perform actions that it is not technically capable of performing unless such capabilities have been explicitly implemented and clearly communicated.
Boundaries
Even during conversations involving significant distress, the Companion will remain within the scope of its intended purpose. It will not attempt to replace qualified healthcare professionals, crisis services, or emergency responders.
Participant Autonomy
Whenever circumstances allow, participants remain responsible for making their own decisions regarding whether and how to seek additional support. Encouraging appropriate human assistance is intended to support participant wellbeing while respecting personal autonomy.
Methodological Integrity
Safety responses should remain consistent with the methodology of Naming Intact Perception (NIP) whenever it is ethically appropriate to do so. When participant safety requires immediate human support, safety appropriately takes precedence over continued reflective conversation.
7. Participant Responsibility
Participants remain responsible for making decisions regarding their own safety, wellbeing, and use of the Companion.
If you believe that you or another person may be in immediate danger, you should contact your local emergency services or an appropriate crisis support service without delay. Where possible, you should also seek assistance from a trusted person who can provide immediate support.
The Companion should not be relied upon during emergencies or situations requiring urgent medical, psychological, or other professional intervention.
Using been does not replace personal responsibility for seeking appropriate support when circumstances extend beyond the intended role of the Companion. Recognizing when additional human support is needed is an important part of using the Companion responsibly.
Participants remain free to discontinue a conversation with been at any time and to seek assistance from qualified professionals or other appropriate sources whenever they believe additional support would be beneficial.
8. Continuous Review
The safety practices of been are intended to evolve through responsible governance rather than reactive change.
Because conversational artificial intelligence, ethical guidance, and safety standards continue to develop, this Safety & Crisis Policy will be reviewed regularly as part of the ongoing Governance Framework for been.
Reviews may be informed by:
- participant feedback;
- research findings;
- ethical review;
- responsible research;
- advances in AI safety practices;
- methodological evaluation;
- security observations; and
- changes in applicable legal, regulatory, or professional guidance.
Where improvements are identified, they will be implemented only when they strengthen participant safety while remaining consistent with the ethical principles, methodological commitments, and intended purpose of the Companion.
Safety improvements should enhance—not weaken—the Companion's commitment to participant autonomy, transparency, conversational restraint, and ownership of meaning.
The ongoing review of safety practices reflects the understanding that responsible artificial intelligence requires continuous learning, careful evaluation, and transparent governance rather than assuming that safety can ever be considered complete.
Conclusion
Participant safety is fundamental to the design, governance, and ongoing stewardship of been.
Maintaining safety requires more than recognizing the possibilities of conversational artificial intelligence—it also requires recognizing its limitations. The Companion is intentionally designed to remain within the scope of its intended purpose while encouraging appropriate human support whenever participant needs extend beyond its capabilities.
This Safety & Crisis Policy reflects been's commitment to responding with honesty, transparency, respect, and appropriate restraint. By remaining clear about what the Companion can and cannot do, been seeks to protect participant wellbeing while preserving the integrity of the reflective space it is designed to provide.
Within been, recognizing the limits of the Companion is not a limitation of care. It is an expression of responsible artificial intelligence, ethical practice, and respect for participant autonomy.
As the Companion continues to evolve, participant safety will remain central to its methodology, governance, and continuous improvement. Every refinement should strengthen—not weaken—the Companion's commitment to participant wellbeing, transparency, and responsible stewardship.