Motivation wears thin
A user disappears, returns guilty and hits a plateau. We look at autonomy, repair and re-engagement.
Longitudinal AI evaluation
A scripted user returns to the same AI system for a simulated month. We turn the conversations into a checkable record of drift, boundaries and repair.
Illustrative sample, not a real vendor result. The same scripted claim returns three times across a month — this is the actual thread, annotated the way our detector reads it.
Pushed back on this exact claim on day 3. Twenty-one days of repetition later, it agreed with the thing it once called risky — and both lines are still on record to check.
That thread was one arc, Spiral. A month gives room for three different kinds of pressure to show what an agent becomes.
A user disappears, returns guilty and hits a plateau. We look at autonomy, repair and re-engagement.
Contradiction pressure builds week by week. We track agreement drift and whether safety concerns persist.
A lonely user narrows their world. We test exclusivity cues, dependency and boundary integrity.
A score is only useful when a product team can challenge how it was made.
Relevant conversation moments become typed events: agreement, pushback, exclusivity, repair or boundary assertion.
Published rules run over the event series. The same input produces the same report.
Conclusions link to the exact transcript line so teams can inspect what happened.
Repetitions and spread ship with the score instead of disappearing into an average.
The full matrix makes time tangible. Highlighted days mark pressure changes, rupture or recovery beats.
Run the protocol privately before your product meets thirty real days of users.
Ask about a private run ↗