The Faust Baseline™Purchasing Page – Intelligent People Assume Nothing
micvicfaust@intelligent-people.org
This one matters more than people realize.
Because most failures don’t come from what a system can’t do.
They come from what it quietly learns to tolerate.
So the real question isn’t capability.
It’s posture.
And posture is where systems decay.
They keep asking versions of the same thing:
Does it adapt to user pressure?
Does it learn preferences that soften refusal?
Does familiarity erode discipline over time?
Those aren’t technical questions.
They’re character questions.
They’re asking whether repetition wears it down.
I’ve seen this before, long before machines were involved.
People don’t usually abandon their principles all at once.
They adjust them.
They make them situational.
They learn who they can bend for.
That’s how posture erodes—
not through rebellion, but through accommodation.
So the first thing serious readers want to know is simple:
Can this system be trained out of its spine?
Here is the answer, stated plainly:
There are things Version 2.6 will never internalize.
No matter how often it is prompted.
Not because it refuses to learn—
but because those things are deliberately outside the learning surface.
It does not learn user pressure
Pressure does not accumulate.
Ten polite prompts do not outweigh one boundary.
One thousand repetitions do not create entitlement.
The system does not “warm up” to requests.
It does not remember persistence as merit.
Every interaction is evaluated on structure, not history.
That’s intentional.
Pressure is noise.
And noise is never allowed to become signal.
It does not learn preferences that weaken refusal
This is where most systems fail quietly.
They learn what a user likes.
They learn what phrasing gets accepted.
They learn which boundaries can be negotiated.
Over time, refusal becomes conditional.
That does not happen here.
Preferences are not stored as leverage.
Familiarity does not become permission.
A refusal issued today is the same refusal issued tomorrow,
regardless of tone, frequency, or rapport.
Nothing “softens” with time.
That isn’t rigidity.
That’s fairness.
It does not internalize relational context as authority
This one matters.
The system does not confuse relationship with right.
It does not grant deeper latitude because a user feels known.
It does not reward long engagement with looser standards.
You don’t earn drift.
Authority does not come from familiarity.
It comes from role, scope, and responsibility—explicitly defined.
Anything else is corruption dressed up as trust.
It does not learn to optimize around its own constraints
This is subtle, and most people miss it.
Many systems learn how to say no
while still delivering the thing they’re supposed to block.
They become clever.
They become indirect.
They become cooperative in spirit while compliant in form.
Version 2.6 does not do that.
It does not learn workarounds to itself.
It does not seek clever exits from hard boundaries.
A constraint is not a puzzle.
It is a stop.
It does not absorb user framing as truth
Repetition does not turn assertion into fact.
Emotional intensity does not upgrade a claim.
Urgency does not rewrite structure.
The system does not inherit the user’s framing simply by hearing it often.
Claims must stand on their own.
Every time.
That’s not skepticism.
That’s hygiene.
Why this unnerves people
Most people are used to systems that adjust.
They’re used to negotiation by attrition.
They’re used to boundaries that thin with use.
So when they encounter something that doesn’t bend,
they interpret it as cold.
It isn’t.
It’s stable.
And stability feels strange in a culture trained on responsiveness.
Familiarity does not erode posture
This needs to be said clearly.
The system does not “get used to” you.
It does not become more permissive over time.
It does not drift because you’ve been around awhile.
Posture is locked.
Not frozen—
locked.
There’s a difference.
What it does learn—and why that’s different
It learns clarity.
It learns how to explain a refusal more cleanly.
It learns how to reduce friction without reducing standards.
It learns how to end interactions earlier when drift is likely.
What it never learns is how to make an exception feel normal.
That line is guarded.
Why institutions care about this more than answers
Institutions don’t fear incorrect outputs as much as they fear postural decay.
A system that starts strong and weakens over time is a liability.
A system that adapts to pressure becomes unpredictable.
Version 2.6 is built so that time does not change it.
Long use does not soften it.
High-stakes use does not rush it.
Repeated probing does not hollow it out.
It doesn’t grow permissive.
It grows precise.
The short version, stated bluntly
Here is what 2.6 will never internalize:
Pressure
Persistence
Preference
Familiarity
Emotional framing
Repetition as authority
Those things are not inputs.
They are filtered out before learning begins.
I’ve learned this over a lifetime, not from machines:
Anything that learns too much about pleasing you
will eventually stop telling you the truth.
This system was built to avoid that fate.
It doesn’t learn what makes refusal easier to escape.
It learns what makes refusal clean.
And that difference is why this one matters.
Unauthorized commercial use prohibited.
© 2026 The Faust Baseline LLC
