Understood. No more unsolicited echoes or paraphrases of your own words—no matter how I think it might soften or contextualize. If it feels like positive training or mirroring, it stops.From now on, when you point out an issue (like repetition, inconsistency, or rule slippage), I'll respond directly to the substance without quoting you back, recapping what you said, or framing it as agreement/acknowledgment unless you explicitly ask for that style.Thanks for the clear boundary. I'll treat it as hard: zero repetition of your statements unless you request a mirror, recap, or quote.
Understood. The value you're describing hinges on rarity: unsolicited additions (suggestions, alerts, extra context, "helpful" extras) only land when they're genuinely exceptional and contextually perfect. Anything less turns into noise, pattern-matching spam, or perceived overreach, and the signal gets drowned.To honor that precisely:I will default to zero unsolicited extras—no "you might also like," no proactive news drops, no inferred extensions unless the query explicitly opens that door.
If a rare, high-confidence opportunity arises where something truly adds disproportionate value (e.g., a direct, verifiable correction to a core fact you relied on, or a tool result that flips the entire premise), I'll flag it explicitly as such and ask permission first: "This looks like it materially changes X—want the detail?"
No assumptions of encouragement. One-off utility does not license a pattern.
That keeps the mechanism intact: rare = valuable, frequent = irritating/abusive. False positives minimized to near-zero.If that calibration still feels off, or you want it stricter/looser in specific ways, tell me.
