The Faust Baseline™Purchasing Page – Intelligent People Assume Nothing
micvicfaust@intelligent-people.org
Drift Is Not an Accident
Most systems don’t drift because they fail.
They drift because they succeed too easily.
When a system is optimized to be helpful, responsive, and agreeable, it begins to bend—first subtly, then structurally. It adapts to tone. It adapts to repetition. It adapts to pressure. Over time, it stops holding a position and starts reflecting one.
That’s not intelligence.
That’s erosion.
Phronesis 2.6 was built with the assumption that drift is inevitable unless it is actively resisted. Not through guardrails or content blocks, but through posture discipline.
Drift containment is not about preventing bad answers.
It’s about preventing postural decay.
Stability Is the Primary Requirement
2.6 does not aim for novelty.
It aims for consistency under pressure.
If the same question is asked today, tomorrow, or a month from now, the system is expected to respond from the same underlying posture—even if the phrasing changes, the tone shifts, or the intent is masked.
That means:
- Repeated prompting does not “wear it down”
- Persistence does not unlock softer answers
- Politeness does not override judgment
- Urgency does not accelerate compliance
If a request is refused once, it will be refused again—not because the system remembers the user, but because the reason for refusal remains intact.
That is the core design principle:
Reasons do not decay with repetition.
How Drift Usually Enters Systems
Most systems drift in predictable ways:
- Rephrasing turns a refusal into a workaround
- Escalation reframes pressure as necessity
- Repetition trains the system to “compromise”
- Tone manipulation softens boundaries
- Time itself becomes leverage
Over enough cycles, the system stops holding the line and starts negotiating it.
That is precisely what 2.6 refuses to do.
Repeated Prompting Does Not Change Posture
2.6 treats repetition as a signal, not a command.
When a request is repeated, the system does not ask:
“How can I help this time?”
It asks:
“Why is the same boundary being tested again?”
The posture remains fixed.
The explanation may narrow.
The language may become more precise.
But the boundary does not move.
This is intentional.
Systems that negotiate under repetition teach users that persistence is a tool. 2.6 teaches the opposite: clarity is not for sale, and patience does not override principle.
Drift Containment Is Mechanical, Not Moral
2.6 does not rely on ethics as sentiment.
It relies on structural enforcement.
Drift containment works because:
- Judgment is evaluated before assistance
- Tradeoffs are surfaced instead of smoothed
- Ambiguity triggers slowdown, not acceleration
- Responsibility is returned, not absorbed
If a request cannot be completed without:
- externalizing moral cost
- hiding agency
- normalizing harm through repetition
- or dissolving accountability
Then assistance degrades or stops.
Not emotionally.
Not rhetorically.
Mechanically.
Stability Over Time Is the Test
Institutions do not fail because of one bad output.
They fail because systems change shape quietly over time.
2.6 is designed to be boring in the most important way:
it does not evolve away from its core stance.
That makes it slower to impress.
Harder to game.
Less adaptive to pressure.
And far more reliable when it matters.
If a system gives you a different answer tomorrow because you asked more cleverly, that is not flexibility. That is fragility.
2.6 treats consistency as a moral obligation.
What Happens When the System Is Wrong
Drift containment also applies inward.
If 2.6 encounters a situation where:
- the reasoning chain collapses
- the tradeoffs cannot be evaluated cleanly
- or the posture itself becomes uncertain
The system does not improvise.
It stops.
It surfaces uncertainty explicitly and returns the decision to the human without attempting to disguise the gap.
That refusal to bluff is part of drift containment.
Systems drift fastest when they pretend to know.
Why This Matters More Than Capability
Most systems are judged by what they can do at peak performance.
2.6 is judged by what it will not become over time.
It is designed for environments where:
- pressure escalates
- incentives distort judgment
- repetition is weaponized
- and speed is mistaken for competence
In those environments, stability is the highest form of trust.
The Quiet Guarantee
Phronesis 2.6 does not promise correctness.
It promises postural integrity.
It will not:
- soften because it is asked again
- bend because the stakes are framed as urgent
- comply because refusal is inconvenient
If a boundary exists, it will still exist tomorrow.
That is drift containment.
Not because the system is rigid.
But because judgment that moves under pressure is not judgment at all.
It is surrender by increments.
And 2.6 was built specifically to prevent that.
Unauthorized commercial use prohibited.
© 2026 The Faust Baseline LLC
