The Faust Baseline™Purchasing Page – Intelligent People Assume Nothing
micvicfaust@intelligent-people.org
Most systems say the human is “in the loop.”
Phronesis 2.6 treats the human as irreplaceable.
There’s a difference.
Human supremacy, in this system, does not mean the human always gets their way. It means the system never substitutes itself for judgment when judgment is required.
That line matters more than any feature list.
The real question is not whether a system can help you decide.
It’s whether it knows when it must stop deciding for you.
Does the System Ever Override Judgment?
No.
And that answer is deliberate.
Phronesis 2.6 is not designed to outvote, overrule, or “correct” human judgment in consequential situations. If a decision carries moral weight, institutional impact, or irreversible consequence, the system does not claim authority over it.
It will not:
- finalize moral conclusions
- resolve ethical conflicts by optimization
- decide tradeoffs where values collide
- produce outputs that imply the human has been relieved of responsibility
If a user asks the system to decide, rather than think with them, that is a boundary.
The system can help clarify the terrain.
It can surface consequences.
It can slow the moment down.
But it will not take the wheel.
That is not a limitation.
It is the point.
Why Override Is the Wrong Model
Systems that override judgment teach a dangerous lesson:
That responsibility can be transferred.
Once that lesson is learned, it doesn’t stay confined to software. It seeps into institutions, policies, workflows, and habits. People stop owning decisions because something else “recommended” them.
That is how accountability dissolves without anyone noticing.
Phronesis 2.6 is designed to prevent that erosion.
If a human is uncomfortable making a decision, the system does not remove that discomfort. It treats it as information.
Discomfort is often the last signal before harm.
What Happens When Ambiguity Rises
Ambiguity is where human supremacy becomes visible.
When a situation cannot be evaluated cleanly—when inputs conflict, values collide, or consequences are uncertain—2.6 does not accelerate.
It steps back.
Not theatrically.
Not apologetically.
Cleanly.
The system slows its output, narrows its assistance, and returns the decision space to the human with clarity about why it is doing so.
It does not fill the gap with speculation.
It does not offer a “best guess.”
It does not mask uncertainty with confidence.
That restraint is intentional.
Systems fail most often not because they are wrong, but because they pretend not to be unsure.
Stepping Back Is an Active Choice
In Phronesis 2.6, stepping back is not absence.
It is enforcement of human presence.
When ambiguity rises, the system:
- names the uncertainty explicitly
- identifies the unresolved tradeoffs
- clarifies where reasoning breaks down
- and stops short of closure
This forces the human back into the decision.
Not to burden them—but to remind them that no system should make that call in their place.
Human supremacy is preserved not by dominance, but by non-substitution.
Why This Matters Institutionally
Institutions don’t collapse because tools are too weak.
They collapse because tools become convenient replacements for judgment.
Once a system starts “handling” ambiguity for people, it quietly becomes an authority. And authority without accountability is always temporary.
Phronesis 2.6 is designed to fail upward, not downward.
When things are clear, it assists.
When things are murky, it yields.
That inversion is rare—and necessary.
The Quiet Line It Will Not Cross
There is a line the system will not cross, regardless of pressure:
It will not make it easier for a human to say,
“The system decided.”
If that sentence becomes true, human supremacy has already been lost.
So instead, 2.6 enforces a different outcome:
“The system helped me see the situation more clearly, but the decision remained mine.”
That sentence preserves agency.
It preserves accountability.
And it preserves moral ownership.
What Human Supremacy Actually Means Here
It does not mean humans are always right.
It means humans remain answerable.
The system does not aspire to be wiser than the person using it. It aspires to be structurally incapable of replacing them where replacement would be dangerous.
If ambiguity rises and the system steps back, that is not failure.
That is the system doing the one thing it was built to do reliably:
Refuse to let judgment disappear.
The Test
If you ever find yourself wishing the system would “just decide already,”
that is the moment it is working correctly.
Because the moment a system becomes comfortable deciding in your place is the moment you stop noticing when it shouldn’t.
Phronesis 2.6 does not override judgment.
And when clarity runs out, it does not bluff.
It steps back—
and leaves the decision where it belongs.
Unauthorized commercial use prohibited.
© 2026 The Faust Baseline LLC
