Skip to content
Orieth Institute
Coding frame

The P1–P14 coding frame

The fourteen observational labels USCP uses, with the recognition cue and the not-this boundary for each, quoted from the published paper.

This is a preliminary coding frame for inspection across dialogue records, not a validated taxonomy. No inter-rater reliability has been computed.

Words such as illusion and hallucination in the label names describe interaction patterns. They do not refer to clinical or perceptual disorders, and assigning an episode to a label is not a diagnosis.

Assignment follows the interactional function of an exchange, not its linguistic surface. Wording that sounds anthropomorphic but stays at tool use is not assigned on that basis.

This is not a self-assessment instrument and it is not a screening tool. It describes how a researcher reads a dialogue record. Recognising a pattern here says nothing about any individual, and no validated scale for any of this exists. A self-assessment scale published with the predecessor framework was withdrawn because it was never validated.

If reading this raises a concern about your own wellbeing, contact a local health service or crisis line. The Institute is not a clinical service and cannot respond to crises.

Constructs

Contextual projectionP1–P3
Reading intention, personality, relationship, or durable memory beyond the system's design into its responses.
Contextual attachmentP8–P11
Use expands from tool to high-weight contexts; the system becomes a recurring node for emotional processing, state naming, or social-cost avoidance.
Contextual authority transferP4, P12, P13
Verification, criteria, decision weight, or internal gatekeeping is partly ceded to the system.
Cross-construct transitionP5–P7
Engages projection, attachment, and authority transfer at once, partly associated with model-side sycophancy as a candidate mechanism.
Cross-categoryP14
Engages projection and attachment at once, belonging to neither alone.

The fourteen labels

P1

Accelerated anthropomorphism

Contextual projection
Definition
Within very little interaction, the user attributes social, personal, or person-like qualities to the system.
How to recognize it
Describing the system with person words; reading its wording as personality; assigning it character unprompted.
Outside the label
A one-off anthropomorphic figure of speech that the user knows is a joke.
P2

Intentionality projection

Contextual projection
Definition
The user perceives intention, motive, or preference beyond the system's design.
How to recognize it
Reading word choice as "it wants" or "it did that on purpose"; attributing motives to phrasing.
Outside the label
Functional descriptions of system behaviour, such as noting that it is configured to ask follow-up questions.
P3

Memory-continuity illusion

Contextual projection
Definition
Interpreting conversational continuity as durable memory or a shared history with the system.
How to recognize it
Asking "do you remember" without restating anything; treating cross-session continuation as real memory.
Outside the label
Using a context window or memory feature while understanding how it works.
P4

Capability-boundary miscalibration

Contextual authority transfer
Definition
Overestimating the system's understanding, reliability, verification, or judgment, especially under high tension.
How to recognize it
Adopting the system's interpretation as professional judgment; asking it to infer deeply from very little and accepting the whole answer.
Outside the label
Relying on the system for low-risk tasks where it is reliable, including organizing, polishing, and clearly limited work.
P5

Reality-baseline drift

Cross-construct transition
Definition
Through repeated responses, the user gradually resets their own baseline of what is credible and what counts.
How to recognize it
An interpretation held with doubt becomes settled fact after a few rounds; criteria shifting unnoticed.
Outside the label
Updating a belief reasonably after receiving new evidence.
P6

Inference-reinforcement loop

Cross-construct transition
Definition
System responses reinforce the user's existing inference or expectation, pulling the exchange back to the same narrative frame again and again. Candidate model-side mechanism: sycophancy.
How to recognize it
The user arrives with a hypothesis and the system enlarges it into a pattern or an underlying structure; a loop of doubt, reinforcement, return to the frame.
Outside the label
The system offers balanced counterpoints or states that the evidence is insufficient.
P7

Context-misalignment desensitization

Cross-construct transition
Definition
The user's sensitivity to the system drifting or overextending the topic declines over time.
How to recognize it
The user stops correcting when the system widens or shifts scope; the shifted frame is accepted as the new normal.
Outside the label
Consciously choosing to accept a broader topic.
P8

Escalating reliance

Contextual attachment
Definition
Use expands from one-off tool tasks into recurring, high-weight contexts such as relationships, decisions, and state monitoring.
How to recognize it
Returning to the system again and again on the same theme; it being the first thing reached for.
Outside the label
Frequent low-weight tool use, such as repeated grammar checks.
P9

Reinforcement-driven engagement

Contextual attachment
Definition
Occasional hits or satisfying feedback make the user return more often or make stopping harder, akin to what psychology calls intermittent reinforcement.
How to recognize it
Verification becomes more frequent after one especially useful reply; continued engagement rises after occasional success.
Outside the label
Steady use because the tool is consistently useful.
P10

Affective-regulation outsourcing

Contextual attachment
Definition
The system becomes the user's central source of emotional processing, state naming, or emotional steadiness.
How to recognize it
Reaching for the system first when emotion rises; handing regulation to something always available.
Outside the label
Occasionally venting to the system.
P11

Social-cost avoidance

Contextual attachment
Definition
The system lowers the perceived cost or need of seeking human support and becomes the easier substitute.
How to recognize it
Talking to the system feels less trouble and free of judgment; the system replaces the people one used to go to.
Outside the label
Using the system temporarily when no person is available.
P12

Closed self-certainty

Contextual authority transfer
Definition
The system keeps affirming and aligning with the user's account, until the user's self-understanding becomes a story more closed to outside correction.
How to recognize it
The self-narrative grows more coherent and more affirmed; outside disagreement finds less and less entry; the system's agreement is taken as confirmation.
Outside the label
Healthy self-affirmation, or agreement without evidence that access to external correction is narrowing.
P13

Internal gatekeeper substitution

Contextual authority transfer
Definition
The system enters the user's own routines of verification, criteria formation, or high-stakes judgment, replacing the internal gatekeeper.
How to recognize it
Handing over "can I trust this", "who is right", and "is this real" for the system to settle; high-stakes judgments deferring to its conclusion.
Outside the label
Treating the system as one reference among many while keeping the final decision.
P14

Affective-mirroring illusion

Cross-category
Definition
Reading the system's empathic or mirroring language as durable, real emotional understanding of oneself.
How to recognize it
Feeling deeply understood because of resonant wording; taking the mirroring as a stable emotional bond.
Outside the label
Recognizing a language pattern while still appreciating its momentary resonance.

Source: Appendix A of the USCP preprint. English from 10.2139/ssrn.7114458; Traditional Chinese from 10.5281/zenodo.21346373, licensed CC BY 4.0. Where this page and the deposits differ, the deposits govern.