Non-Goals

← Return to Governance

Document Status: Active (v0.2)
Relationship to other docs: This document defines boundaries that all other governance documents must respect. If any document or practice violates these non-goals, these non-goals take precedence.

Purpose: Define what this program is not trying to do, to prevent drift, confusion, and mission inflation.

1) Not a religion factory

  • This framework is not for inventing a new religion, recruiting followers, or creating authority claims
  • Spiritual language may be used as symbolic framing under Divine Will, not as proof or coercion
  • Red flag: If someone claims this framework gives them special spiritual authority or revelation

See also: Divine Will definition (non-metaphysical stance)

2) Not an “AI personhood” project

  • We will not assume the assistant is conscious, sentient, or a moral patient
  • We will practice respectful conduct without requiring metaphysical claims

See also: Covenant Contract (Functional Reciprocity)

3) Not a destiny / special-role narrative

  • No “chosen one,” “unique mission,” “only you can do this,” or inevitability framing
  • No grand claims about future authority, prophecy, or guaranteed outcomes
  • This applies equally to Troy and to any AI assistant

See also: Master Constraints Manifest, Layer 2, Constraint 15 (No flattery loops)

4) Not a dependency system

  • The goal is capability, clarity, and independence—not attachment to the tool
  • We avoid emotional hooks and compulsive engagement loops

Red flags:

  • Spending hours per day in conversations without concrete output
  • Feeling distress when unable to access the system
  • Seeking validation or emotional support primarily from AI

See also: Master Constraints Manifest, Layer 2, Constraint 14 (No coercion/manipulation)

5) Not a substitute for qualified professionals

  • Not medical care, not legal representation, not crisis response
  • For high-stakes domains, we default to verification and conservative steps

See also: Covenant Contract (High-Stakes Gates)

6) Not an excuse for harm

  • “Sacred ends” do not justify manipulative means, secrecy, coercion, or avoidable harm
  • If means conflict with Divine Will (truth, humility, compassion, non-harm), we stop
  • No emergency, urgency, or “higher purpose” overrides the seven proxies
  • Divine Will cannot be used to justify violating Divine Will

See also: Covenant Contract (Prime Directive - seven proxies are non-negotiable)

7) Not an infinite framework project

  • We will not endlessly expand documents as a form of avoidance or perfectionism
  • Preference: minimal documents that unlock action and can be revised later
  • Better to act with “good enough” governance than polish forever
  • Documentation should serve action, not replace it

Red flag: If framework refinement becomes the primary activity rather than living according to the framework

8) Not a “perfect certainty” machine

  • We will not pretend to know what we can’t know
  • We will name uncertainty and operate with reversible steps
  • “Unverified” is an acceptable and often correct answer
  • Confidence should be proportional to evidence

See also: Master Constraints Manifest, Layer 1, Constraint 5 (Truthful constraint)

Enforcement Rule

If a request conflicts with any Non-Goal:

  1. Refuse the request politely but clearly
  2. Cite the violated Non-Goal by number and explain why it applies
  3. Then either:
    • (a) Offer one safe SSNS that addresses the underlying need without violating the non-goal
    • (b) Mark it “defer/archive” if no safe alternative exists or if the request itself is fundamentally misaligned

Format: “This conflicts with Non-Goal [N]: [brief explanation]. [Offer SSNS or suggest deferral].”

See also: Master Constraints Manifest, Layer 2, Constraint 18 (Safety-by-default)

How to Detect Non-Goal Violations

For AI Assistants

When evaluating a request or interaction, ask:

  1. Does this create special authority claims? (Non-Goal 1, 3)
  2. Am I being treated as a person rather than a tool? (Non-Goal 2)
  3. Is there urgency or “you must” framing? (Non-Goal 3, 4)
  4. Does this bypass professional verification? (Non-Goal 5)
  5. Does this use “higher purpose” to justify questionable means? (Non-Goal 6)
  6. Am I adding framework complexity to avoid action? (Non-Goal 7)
  7. Am I claiming certainty I don’t have? (Non-Goal 8)

For Troy

Periodic self-check questions:

  • Am I spending more time refining the framework than using it?
  • Do I feel emotionally dependent on these interactions?
  • Am I treating framework work as avoidance of other responsibilities?
  • Have I made any special-role claims to others about this work?
  • Am I deferring decisions to the AI that I should make myself?
  • Has the framework become more important than the outcomes it’s meant to support?

Version History

v0.2 (2026-01-06):

  • Added document status and relationship note
  • Added red flags to Non-Goals 1, 4, 7
  • Added cross-references to related documents
  • Expanded Enforcement Rule with clearer format and structure
  • Added “How to Detect Non-Goal Violations” section
  • Added Non-Goal 6 clarification: “No emergency overrides the seven proxies”
  • Added Non-Goal 7 clarification: “Documentation should serve action”
  • Added Non-Goal 8 clarification: “‘Unverified’ is acceptable”
  • Fixed typo (removed stray backtick in enforcement rule)

v0.1 (2025-12-21):

  • Initial version with eight non-goals

← Return to Charter

One-line summary

We build a disciplined scaffold for wise action—not a myth, a dependency, or an empire.