ETHICS

The Ethics of
State Support

Define the boundary before expanding capability.

The closer technology comes to the body, the more restraint it needs.

  1. 01Autonomy主体性
  2. 02Transparency透明
  3. 03Exit & Control退出与控制
  4. 04Restraint克制
  5. 05Safety安全

01 / CURRENT SCOPE

What We Mean by
State Support

State support means helping someone regain stability, clarity, and agency when they are overwhelmed or unable to rest, with their knowledge and consent.

At this stage, our work is focused on pre-sleep regulation and restorative use. The aim is to help a person move toward rest, not to override awareness, erase every difficult feeling, or make decisions for them.

02 / PRINCIPLES

Five Principles

They govern how we design state support.

  1. 01

    Autonomy

    The user remains the owner of their own state. The system may support recovery, but it must not replace judgment or self-direction.

  2. 02

    Transparency

    People should know when support is active, why it is being offered, and what form it takes.

  3. 03

    Exit & Control

    People decide whether support is on and what they accept. Pause, reduction, and shutoff must remain available.

  4. 04

    Restraint

    Use the least intervention needed. Meaningful discomfort should not be automatically flattened.

  5. 05

    Safety

    Safety and dignity come before experience optimization. User interests come before business incentives.

03 / LIMITS

What we will not build.

These five practices have no place in our product design.

  1. 01

    No emotional manipulation

    We do not shape compliance for conversion, engagement, dependency, or institutional convenience.

  2. 02

    No decisions made on the user's behalf

    A third party cannot define someone's target state without that person's informed agreement.

  3. 03

    No flattening of meaningful discomfort

    Grief, moral conflict, and reality-based distress should not be erased automatically, or reduced to one emotional template.

  4. 04

    No lowered alertness when judgment matters

    When reflection, alertness, or real-world decisions are required, the system must not push a person toward sedation or impaired judgment.

  5. 05

    No crossing the care or evidence boundary

    State support is not a substitute for care, judgment, or medical responsibility, and claims must stay within the evidence.

Beyond general state support, the system should reduce intervention and leave judgment with the person.

04 / RIGHTS

Control remains with the user.

01

Know

Know what the system is doing and why it is doing it.

02

Choose

Decide whether support is enabled and what forms are accepted.

03

Adjust

Choose manual or automated control, and reduce support at any time.

04

Stop

Pause or turn off support at any time, without giving a reason.

As capability grows, explanations, controls, and automation boundaries must become clearer.

05 / COMMITMENT

A boundary is never written just once.

This charter will change as our capabilities, evidence, and responsibilities change. The direction remains the same: define limits before expanding capability, and protect human agency before optimizing experience.

When evidence is limited, our claims will be narrower. When there is no clear reason to intervene, the system should remain quiet.

Questions about these boundaries are welcome

SENSORIUM / ETHICS CHARTER

FULL CHARTER / 2026

Sensorium Ethics of State Support

This charter explains what we mean by state support and which capabilities do not belong in the product. It will keep changing as the evidence and our responsibilities change.

01

What we mean by state support

State support is not about deciding what a person should feel or compressing a complex experience into one standard outcome. With the person's knowledge and agreement, it may help someone regain enough stability, clarity, and agency when they are overwhelmed or unable to rest.

Our role is not to erase the human condition. Grief, hesitation, guilt, alertness, and tension can carry information about relationships, values, risk, and reality. Support belongs only where a person is struggling to recover or rest and wants help.

02

Our core ethical position

The aim of this technology is not comfort at any cost. It is to help a person return to a state in which they can rest, think, and act for themselves.

We do not build systems that define how a person ought to feel. The product must not seek to make people more compliant, easier to manage, more responsive to commercial pressure, or less able to exercise independent judgment. Any design that weakens agency in the name of help has crossed the boundary.

03

The principles we design by

  • Autonomy first: the user remains the primary owner of their own state; the system supports recovery without replacing judgment or self-direction.
  • Minimal and proportionate: use the least intervention needed; numbness, passivity, and dependence do not count as improvement.
  • Transparent: people should know when support is active, why it is active, and what form it takes.
  • Safety before optimization: safety and dignity come before experience metrics, and user interests come before business incentives.
  • Respect meaningful discomfort: not every difficult feeling is a defect that should be corrected.
04

When support is appropriate

State support is justified only when someone is clearly overwhelmed, unable to settle, recover, or rest, and wants support.

At this stage, our work is focused on pre-sleep regulation and restorative use. The aim is to help someone move toward rest, not to overpower awareness or remove agency. Support should restore capacity; if it begins to replace judgment, suppress meaningful experience, or serve someone other than the user, it should stop.

05

When we choose restraint

The ability to intervene does not make intervention justified. A system should not automatically flatten meaningful grief, moral conflict, or reality-based distress, and a third party cannot set a person's target state without that person's informed agreement.

When alertness, reflection, or real-world decisions are required, the system must not push someone toward sedation, reduced responsiveness, or impaired judgment. If a situation may be beyond general state support, the system should become more cautious, not more forceful.

06

What we will not build toward

  • No hidden emotional manipulation.
  • No compliance shaping for conversion, engagement, dependency, or institutional convenience.
  • No presentation of state support as a substitute for care, judgment, or medical responsibility.
  • No claims that run ahead of the evidence.
  • No reduction of people to one optimized emotional template.
07

User rights

People have the right to know what the system is doing, why it is doing it, and how to stop it. Whether support is enabled, which forms are accepted, and whether control is manual or automated must remain the user's choice.

Pause, reduction, and shutoff must always be available without requiring an additional reason. As capability grows, explanations, controls, and automation boundaries must become clearer.

08

A living commitment

This is not a declaration that stays unchanged after publication. As capability grows, ethical responsibility grows with it; as new evidence appears, we will continue to revise this charter.

The direction remains the same: define limits before expanding capability, and protect human agency before optimizing experience. When evidence is limited, our claims will be narrower. When there is no clear reason to intervene, the system should remain quiet.