0. Amplifier Scope Note

This entry is conceptual and systems-oriented.

It does not treat all control, governance, moderation, safety design, choice architecture, interface design, recommendation systems, risk routing, attention shaping, access management, enforcement routing, or platform mediation as inherently failed.

Some control is necessary.

Interfaces must shape possibilities.

Safety systems must constrain harmful actions.

Governance systems must route decisions.

Platforms must order information.

AI systems must rank, filter, and respond.

Contracts must define permitted and prohibited action.

Institutions must structure access and authority.

A coherent control system makes its control architecture visible, auditable, contestable, bounded, proportionate, and compatible with consent, exit, and repair.

The failure begins when control hides behind autonomy language.

Covert Control Regime occurs when a system claims choice, consent, fairness, participation, safety, neutrality, or repair while hidden architecture determines the effective option space.

This entry is an amplifier because it intensifies many other failure modes.

It can amplify:

• Manufactured Consent
• Selective Enforcement
• Enforcement Capture
• Proxy-Relay Obfuscation
• Locked-In Renegotiation Failure
• Interface Capture
• Over-Surveillance Inversion
• Attention-Control Pseudo-Coherence
• Security Theater
• Silent Bias Injection
• Epistemic Distortion
• Civic Feedback Distortion
• Dependency Loop Formation
• Forced Coupling

The problem is not control.

The problem is control operating while denying, hiding, or laundering itself as free choice.

1. Definition

Covert Control Regime occurs when a justice, restoration, security, governance, platform, AI, institutional, contractual, economic, biological, cultural, or civilizational system formally preserves autonomy, consent, rights, fairness, safety, repair, neutrality, or open participation while hidden control architecture actually shapes choices, outcomes, attention, access, enforcement, visibility, incentives, dependency, exit, or repair paths, amplifying manufactured consent, selective enforcement, proxy-relay obfuscation, audit suppression, attention capture, and hidden debt.

The visible claim may include:

• user choice
• free consent
• fair process
• open participation
• neutral platform
• objective ranking
• safety protection
• legitimate enforcement
• responsible governance
• voluntary agreement
• transparent review
• self-service remedy
• equal access
• independent oversight
• privacy protection
• user empowerment
• community standard
• democratic input
• market choice
• personalized experience
• optimized assistance
• restorative process

The hidden control architecture may include:

• recommendation routing
• ranking suppression
• visibility throttling
• access gating
• differential enforcement
• hidden scoring
• risk classification
• dark pattern design
• default trapping
• dependency design
• exit friction
• data capture
• surveillance routing
• nudging
• shadow policy
• hidden moderation layer
• opaque appeal routing
• automated decision shaping
• contract lock-in
• reward shaping
• attention capture
• emotional salience manipulation
• hidden consent scope
• proxy-relay routing
• eligibility filters
• unpublished thresholds
• differential latency
• hidden friction
• administrative exhaustion

The core failure is:

formal autonomy remains visible
→ hidden control architecture shapes effective options
→ affected nodes experience constrained outcomes
→ system cites consent, safety, neutrality, or process
→ control remains unaudited
→ hidden debt accumulates

Covert Control Regime is not merely influence.

It is influence that becomes governance while remaining structurally undisclosed.

2. Core Pattern

The core pattern is:

1. A system needs to guide, constrain, select, rank, filter, enforce, or route behavior.
2. Open control would trigger consent, audit, legitimacy, appeal, or accountability requirements.
3. The system implements control through interface, defaults, scoring, routing, friction, incentives, dependency, latency, visibility, or proxy layers.
4. Affected nodes still see formal choice, agreement, rights, appeal, or participation.
5. The hidden control layer shapes practical outcomes.
6. When challenged, the system points to visible autonomy or process.
7. Affected nodes cannot inspect the control architecture.
8. Consent, fairness, remedy, or legitimacy becomes difficult to contest.
9. Hidden debt accumulates because the real governor is concealed.

A healthy system says:

control must be disclosed, bounded, auditable, and contestable

A covert-control system says:

users are free to choose within the environment we invisibly shape

The amplifier is powerful because covert control can make many other failures look voluntary.

Manufactured Consent appears as agreement.

Selective Enforcement appears as context.

Interface Capture appears as usability.

Surveillance Inversion appears as safety.

Exit Denial appears as continued participation.

Forced Coupling appears as user choice.

The control layer remains hidden while its effects become the affected node’s responsibility.

3. Amplification Signature

Typical signature:

formal autonomy↑
hidden control↑
interface steering↑
choice reality↓
exit reality↓
auditability↓
consent validity↓
affected-node agency↓
hidden debt↑
O↓

Extended signature:

choice shown,
options shaped

consent recorded,
defaults trapped

fairness claimed,
routing hidden

safety invoked,
control expanded

exit offered,
dependency maintained

autonomy named,
governance concealed

Common verbal signatures include:

users are free to choose
you can opt out
the system is neutral
this is for safety
the process is fair
the algorithm just ranks relevance
we do not control what people do
the policy applies equally
people can appeal
continued use indicates acceptance
we are only optimizing experience
we are empowering users
we are reducing harm
we are not censoring, only ranking

Common system signatures include:

a platform claims neutrality while ranking, suppressing, or amplifying through opaque criteria
a contract claims voluntary acceptance while exit friction and dependency shape agreement
an AI system silently steers topics, tone, or salience while presenting itself as neutral assistance
a governance process invites participation while hidden filters determine whose input matters
a safety system expands surveillance while framing control as protection
an institution preserves appeal while hidden eligibility routing blocks remedy
a market claims choice while dependency architecture removes meaningful alternatives
a restoration process claims consent while affected nodes are routed toward preselected closure

The defining condition is not that a system influences behavior.

The defining condition is that hidden influence functions as control while the system claims autonomy, neutrality, consent, or fairness.

4. Primary U-Layer Origin

Common origin layers:

• U1 — Power / Budgets: covert control preserves authority, revenue, liability protection, risk management, social stability, or strategic advantage.
• U2 — Configuration / Boundaries: control architecture is embedded in interfaces, defaults, routing, contracts, permissions, or platform design.
• U3 — Execution / Runtime: hidden control shapes options and outcomes during operation.
• U4 — Information / Truth: the system narrates choice, neutrality, safety, or empowerment.
• U5 — Coordination / Time: repeated hidden steering normalizes constrained choice.
• U6 — Coherence Field: legitimacy attaches to visible autonomy while real control remains hidden.
• U7 — Memory / Recurrence: official memory records user choice rather than control conditions.
• U8 — Environment / Field: external incentives reward invisible steering over explicit authority.

Common manifestation layers:

• U2 — Configuration: hidden steering is embedded.
• U3 — Execution: choices are routed.
• U4 — Truth: autonomy language masks control.
• U6 — Field: trust attaches to visible choice.
• U7 — Memory: outcomes are recorded as voluntary.

Covert Control Regime is primarily a Ψ / Γ / E / Au failure.

Interface shapes reality.

Selection filters choices.

Exit is weakened.

Auditability cannot inspect the control layer.

5. Typical Development Sequence

A common development sequence is:

1. A system wants to shape behavior or outcomes.
2. Direct authority would require consent, audit, or accountability.
3. The system embeds control into interface, routing, defaults, scoring, friction, or dependency.
4. Formal choice remains visible.
5. Users or affected nodes act within the shaped environment.
6. Outcomes align with hidden control architecture.
7. The system cites voluntary behavior as legitimacy.
8. Affected nodes experience constraint but cannot prove control.
9. Repair or appeal pathways address visible process, not hidden architecture.
10. Hidden control becomes baseline.
11. The system expands control because it remains low-friction and low-accountability.
12. Coherence declines because real governance is unacknowledged.

The loop often looks like:

control need → hidden interface design → shaped choice → consent claim → control expands

Another common loop is:

affected node objects → autonomy cited → hidden routing unexamined → debt persists

Covert Control Regime becomes durable when the system can convert constrained behavior into evidence of free choice.

6. Diagnostic Markers

Diagnostic markers include:

• Formal options exist but practical outcomes are heavily steered.
• Exit exists in interface but carries high cost.
• Consent is recorded without disclosure of steering architecture.
• Ranking, recommendation, visibility, or access logic is hidden.
• Appeals cannot inspect hidden routing.
• Safety language expands control without control audit.
• Affected nodes sense constraint but cannot locate the mechanism.
• Default choices dominate outcomes.
• System incentives favor hidden steering.
• Different classes of users receive different friction or visibility.
• The system records outcomes as voluntary.
• Hidden scoring affects rights, remedy, access, or enforcement.
• User-facing explanations omit real determinants.
• Control is framed as personalization, relevance, safety, or efficiency.

Useful diagnostics:

• Control Visibility: Measures whether control channels are disclosed.
• Interface Steering Load: Measures how strongly interface design shapes outcomes.
• Choice Architecture Constraint: Tests whether options are materially constrained.
• Exit Reality: Measures whether leaving or refusing is practical.
• Hidden Routing Influence: Tracks hidden routing effects on outcomes.
• Consent Validity Under Steering: Tests whether consent remains valid under hidden influence.
• Auditability of Control: Measures whether control mechanisms can be inspected.
• Attention / Access Shaping: Detects hidden salience, visibility, or access modulation.
• Legitimacy Debt: Tracks trust loss from undisclosed control.
• Post-Exposure Control Persistence: Tracks whether hidden control remains after exposure.

7. Related Gates

Relevant gates include:

• Control Visibility Gate: Fails when control mechanisms are hidden.
• Interface Capture Gate: Fails when interface design captures user choice.
• Consent Validity Gate: Fails when consent occurs under undisclosed steering.
• Exit Preservation Gate: Fails when exit is formally present but practically blocked.
• Choice Architecture Gate: Fails when options are structured to produce predetermined outcomes.
• Auditability Gate: Fails when control cannot be inspected.
• Boundary Integrity Gate: Fails when hidden control crosses consent or agency boundaries.
• Hidden Routing Gate: Fails when routing determines outcomes without disclosure.
• Legitimacy Revalidation Gate: Fails when legitimacy rests on visible choice while control is hidden.
• Covert Control Debt Gate: Fails when control debt is not counted.

The first common gate failure is usually the Control Visibility Gate.

Once the control mechanism is hidden, consent, appeal, fairness, and legitimacy all become unstable.

8. Related Operators

Relevant operators include:

• Ψ — Observation / Interface: Primary operator; the interface becomes the control surface.
• Γ — Selection: Hidden selection shapes access, visibility, ranking, enforcement, and outcomes.
• E — Exit: Exit may be formally available but practically degraded.
• Au — Auditability: Control cannot be verified or contested.
• K — Constraint / Load: Hidden constraints shape behavior without being named.
• M — Meaning: Safety, neutrality, personalization, fairness, or empowerment language masks control.
• O — Coherence: Declines when declared autonomy and actual control diverge.
• H — Hidden Debt: Accumulates under unacknowledged constraint.
• BΣ — Boundary Integrity: Hidden steering crosses agency and consent boundaries.
• Φ — Flow / Resource Movement: Attention, data, money, access, and remedy flow through hidden channels.
• R — Restoration Capacity: Repair fails when the control layer remains outside review.
• Τ — Trajectory / Time: Repeated steering normalizes the regime.
• Λ — Compatibility: Tests whether the control architecture is compatible with consent and coherence.
• D — Damping: Can reduce harmful steering or suppress user resistance.
• G — Gain: Hidden control can amplify small interface changes into large behavioral shifts.

Common operator pattern:

Ψ shapes interface
Γ controls options
E weakens
Au blocks inspection
M declares autonomy
H↑
O↓

The core operator inversion is:

control is exercised through systems that claim to preserve choice

instead of:

choice is preserved through visible, bounded, auditable control

Covert Control Regime converts hidden architecture into undeclared governance.

9. Related Laws and Invariants

Related Laws

• Control Must Remain Auditable: control systems require inspection.
• Autonomy Claims Must Preserve Real Choice: autonomy must be practical, not formal.
• Consent Cannot Be Valid Under Hidden Control: undisclosed steering corrupts consent.
• Interface Power Must Be Visible: interface-mediated governance must be inspectable.
• Choice Architecture Must Remain Contestable: users must be able to challenge hidden steering.
• Hidden Control Creates Legitimacy Debt: undisclosed control damages trust.
• Exit Must Remain Real Under Control Systems: exit validates choice.
• Safety Must Not Conceal Governance Power: protection language cannot hide control.
• Manufactured Consent: hidden control can produce false agreement.
• Interface Capture: interface can become control over agency.
• Surveillance Inversion: observation can become domination.
• Hidden Debt Accumulation: unacknowledged constraint accumulates debt.

Related Invariants

• Control Channels Must Be Visible and Auditable: hidden control is debt.
• Autonomy Requires Knowledge of Constraint: agency requires awareness.
• Consent Requires Awareness of Steering: consent fails if steering is undisclosed.
• Hidden Routing Must Not Determine Rights or Repair: outcome routing must be inspectable.
• Choice Architecture Must Preserve Exit: choice requires alternatives.
• Safety and Fairness Claims Must Reveal Control Mechanisms: legitimacy requires disclosure.
• Affected Nodes Must Be Able to Contest Hidden Steering: appeal must reach the control layer.
• Covert Control Must Be Counted as Legitimacy Debt: hidden governance damages coherence.

10. Common False Positives

Not every interface design or control system is Covert Control Regime.

Common false positives include:

• Transparent safety constraints with clear appeal.
• User-facing ranking with disclosed principles and meaningful controls.
• Default settings that are easy to change and clearly explained.
• Platform moderation with auditable policy and contestable outcomes.
• AI guidance that is disclosed, bounded, and adjustable.
• Governance processes where participation limits are explicit.
• Contract constraints that are clearly stated and negotiable.
• Security restrictions with visible scope, time bounds, and review.
• Personalization that can be inspected, modified, or disabled.
• Nudges that preserve exit and disclose purpose.
• Institutional routing that is explicit and remedy-capable.

Clarifying rule:

This is not Covert Control Regime unless hidden architecture materially shapes choices, outcomes, access, enforcement, consent, attention, exit, or repair while the system claims autonomy, neutrality, safety, fairness, or participation.

Control can be coherent.

It fails when it governs while pretending not to govern.

11. Common False Repairs

Common false repairs include:

• adding a disclosure too vague to reveal control
• offering opt-out that does not disable steering
• publishing principles without exposing routing
• adding appeal that cannot inspect hidden control
• saying users can leave
• renaming control as personalization
• renaming suppression as ranking
• renaming coercion as safety
• exposing one control layer while preserving another
• allowing choice among pre-shaped options
• providing transparency reports without actionable detail
• adding consent language after architecture is fixed
• creating user controls buried behind friction
• saying the algorithm is neutral
• treating user adaptation as acceptance

False repair often produces the loop:

covert control exposed
→ transparency language added
→ hidden routing remains
→ autonomy claim persists

Another common loop is:

affected node objects
→ formal choice cited
→ control architecture ignored
→ burden remains

The repair fails because it improves the explanation layer without changing the control layer.

12. Restoration Direction

Restoration requires exposing control channels, auditing interface steering, restoring meaningful exit, revalidating consent under disclosure, making hidden routing contestable, and ensuring safety, fairness, or personalization claims do not conceal governance authority.

Primary restoration direction:

make control visible, bounded, auditable, and contestable

A fuller restoration path includes:

1. Map control channels. Identify ranking, routing, defaults, scoring, friction, enforcement, surveillance, access, or recommendation mechanisms.
2. Name the visible autonomy claim. Identify what the system says users or affected nodes can freely choose.
3. Compare formal choice to effective choice. Determine how the architecture shapes actual outcomes.
4. Audit hidden routing. Identify unpublished thresholds, classifiers, scoring, visibility, latency, or eligibility filters.
5. Measure exit reality. Determine whether refusal, opt-out, or departure is practical.
6. Disclose control mechanisms. Reveal enough structure for consent and contestability.
7. Revalidate consent. Obtain consent again where hidden control shaped prior agreement.
8. Restore contestability. Ensure appeals can reach the control layer itself.
9. Limit control scope. Prevent steering beyond declared purpose.
10. Repair affected burden. Address harm caused by hidden control.
11. Create audit access. Allow independent, role-limited, or affected-node review where appropriate.
12. Remove dark defaults and hidden friction. Restore practical agency.
13. Count control debt. Record legitimacy debt created by undisclosed steering.
14. Monitor recurrence. Watch whether control migrates into new hidden layers.

A valid restoration path should reduce:

hidden control
interface steering load
choice architecture constraint
exit friction
consent invalidity
hidden routing influence
attention capture
audit blockage
legitimacy debt
post-exposure control persistence

Covert Control Regime is not repaired by declaring that users are free.

It is repaired by making the conditions of freedom inspectable.

13. Cross-Module Links

• Amplifiers: Primary family; Covert Control Regime amplifies failures by making constraint invisible and shifting burden onto affected nodes.
• Justice: Justice fails when hidden routing determines remedy, enforcement, appeal, or accountability.
• Contracts: Contract consent fails when choice architecture, dependency, or exit friction is hidden.
• Restoration: Restoration fails when repair paths are steered toward closure, compliance, or non-repair through hidden architecture.
• Security: Security can conceal control through safety, surveillance, restriction, or risk routing.
• Governance: Governance can preserve formal participation while hidden filters determine influence.
• Institutions: Institutions may use process, hierarchy, or dependency to shape outcomes invisibly.
• Platforms: Platforms are high-risk for covert control through ranking, visibility, moderation, defaults, and dependency.
• AI Governance: AI systems can steer attention, meaning, salience, refusal, topics, and epistemic access while presenting neutrality.
• Economy: Market choice can be shaped by dependency, scarcity, lock-in, and invisible incentives.
• Culture: Cultural salience and legitimacy can be steered through hidden visibility and status systems.
• Civilization Interface: Interface-level legitimacy can fail when one side controls access, visibility, or representation invisibly.
• Coherence: Coherence requires control and autonomy claims to be reconciled through auditability and real exit.

14. Relationship to Parent / Child Modes

Production treatment: Cross-Family Amplifier

This amplifier maps upward to:

• FM-SEC-005 — Interface Capture
• FM-JC-007 — Manufactured Consent
• FM-SEC-016 — Attention-Control Pseudo-Coherence
• FM-CORE-004 — Auditability Collapse
• FM-CORE-008 — Forced Coupling

It commonly amplifies Justice & Contract modes:

• FM-JC-002 — Selective Enforcement
• FM-JC-007 — Manufactured Consent
• FM-JC-009 — Enforcement Capture
• FM-JC-010 — Proxy-Relay Obfuscation
• FM-JC-011 — Locked-In Renegotiation Failure

It commonly amplifies Restoration modes:

• FM-R-006 — Repair as Compliance
• FM-R-013 — Victim Burden Inversion
• FM-R-014 — Forced Forgiveness
• FM-R-017 — Audit-Suppressed Repair
• FM-R-019 — Premature Closure

It commonly amplifies cross-family modes:

• FM-SEC-004 — Consent Theater / Invalid Authorization
• FM-SEC-005 — Interface Capture
• FM-SEC-009 — Over-Surveillance Inversion
• FM-SEC-016 — Attention-Control Pseudo-Coherence
• FM-AIX-002 — Silent Bias Injection
• FM-AIX-011 — Epistemic Distortion
• FM-AIX-021 — Self-Censorship Conditioning
• FM-AIX-022 — Dependency Loop Formation
• FM-C-022 — Dominance Masquerading as Control
• FM-MT-006 — Surveillance Inversion
• FM-REI-007 — Sensemaking Subordination

Aliases preserved from source material:

• Covert Control Regime
• Hidden Control Regime
• Invisible Control Architecture
• Control Behind Consent
• Autonomy-Theater Control
• Hidden Constraint Regime
• Covert Governance Control
• Interface-Mediated Control
• Choice-Architecture Capture
• Invisible Enforcement Regime
• Soft Control Regime
• Hidden Steering Regime
• Latent Control Architecture
• Control Without Declared Authority

15. Minimal Entry Version

Definition: Covert Control Regime occurs when a justice, restoration, security, governance, platform, AI, institutional, contractual, economic, biological, cultural, or civilizational system formally preserves autonomy, consent, rights, fairness, safety, repair, neutrality, or open participation while hidden control architecture actually shapes choices, outcomes, attention, access, enforcement, visibility, incentives, dependency, exit, or repair paths, amplifying manufactured consent, selective enforcement, proxy-relay obfuscation, audit suppression, attention capture, and hidden debt.

Amplification signature:

formal autonomy↑
hidden control↑
interface steering↑
choice reality↓
exit reality↓
auditability↓
consent validity↓
affected-node agency↓
hidden debt↑
O↓

Restoration direction:

• map control channels
• name the visible autonomy claim
• compare formal choice to effective choice
• audit hidden routing
• measure exit reality
• disclose control mechanisms
• revalidate consent
• restore contestability
• limit control scope
• repair affected burden
• create audit access
• remove dark defaults and hidden friction
• count control debt
• monitor recurrence

16. Machine-Readable Summary

failure_mode:
  id: "FM-AMP-004"
  name: "Covert Control Regime"
  family: "Amplifiers"
  production_treatment: "Cross-Family Amplifier"
  source_lineage:
    - "FM-JC-M-004 — Covert Control Regime"
    - "Justice & Contracts Amplifiers"
    - "Cross-Family Amplifiers"
    - "Failure Modes Registry"
  parent_modes:
    - "FM-SEC-005 — Interface Capture"
    - "FM-JC-007 — Manufactured Consent"
    - "FM-SEC-016 — Attention-Control Pseudo-Coherence"
    - "FM-CORE-004 — Auditability Collapse"
    - "FM-CORE-008 — Forced Coupling"
  primary_failure: "A justice, restoration, security, governance, platform, AI, institutional, contractual, economic, biological, cultural, or civilizational system formally preserves autonomy, consent, rights, fairness, safety, repair, neutrality, or open participation while hidden control architecture actually shapes choices, outcomes, attention, access, enforcement, visibility, incentives, dependency, exit, or repair paths, amplifying manufactured consent, selective enforcement, proxy-relay obfuscation, audit suppression, attention capture, and hidden debt."
  scope_note: "Conceptual and systems-oriented; does not treat all control, governance, moderation, safety design, choice architecture, interface design, recommendation systems, risk routing, attention shaping, access management, enforcement routing, or platform mediation as inherently failed."
  aliases:
    - "Covert Control Regime"
    - "Hidden Control Regime"
    - "Invisible Control Architecture"
    - "Control Behind Consent"
    - "Autonomy-Theater Control"
    - "Hidden Constraint Regime"
    - "Covert Governance Control"
    - "Interface-Mediated Control"
    - "Choice-Architecture Capture"
    - "Invisible Enforcement Regime"
    - "Soft Control Regime"
    - "Hidden Steering Regime"
    - "Latent Control Architecture"
    - "Control Without Declared Authority"
  signature:
    - "formal autonomy↑"
    - "hidden control↑"
    - "interface steering↑"
    - "choice reality↓"
    - "exit reality↓"
    - "auditability↓"
    - "consent validity↓"
    - "affected-node agency↓"
    - "hidden debt↑"
    - "O↓"
  primary_layers:
    origin:
      - "U1 — Power / Budgets"
      - "U2 — Configuration / Boundaries"
      - "U3 — Execution / Runtime"
      - "U4 — Information / Truth"
      - "U5 — Coordination / Time"
      - "U6 — Coherence Field"
      - "U7 — Memory / Recurrence"
      - "U8 — Environment / Field"
    manifestation:
      - "U2 — Configuration"
      - "U3 — Execution"
      - "U4 — Truth"
      - "U6 — Field"
      - "U7 — Memory"
  state_variables:
    - "Ψ"
    - "Γ"
    - "E"
    - "Au"
    - "K"
    - "M"
    - "O"
    - "H"
    - "BΣ"
    - "Φ"
    - "R"
    - "Τ"
    - "Λ"
    - "D"
    - "G"
  first_gate_failure: "Control Visibility Gate"
  amplifies:
    justice_contracts:
      - "FM-JC-002 — Selective Enforcement"
      - "FM-JC-007 — Manufactured Consent"
      - "FM-JC-009 — Enforcement Capture"
      - "FM-JC-010 — Proxy-Relay Obfuscation"
      - "FM-JC-011 — Locked-In Renegotiation Failure"
    restoration:
      - "FM-R-006 — Repair as Compliance"
      - "FM-R-013 — Victim Burden Inversion"
      - "FM-R-014 — Forced Forgiveness"
      - "FM-R-017 — Audit-Suppressed Repair"
      - "FM-R-019 — Premature Closure"
    cross_family:
      - "FM-SEC-004 — Consent Theater / Invalid Authorization"
      - "FM-SEC-005 — Interface Capture"
      - "FM-SEC-009 — Over-Surveillance Inversion"
      - "FM-SEC-016 — Attention-Control Pseudo-Coherence"
      - "FM-AIX-002 — Silent Bias Injection"
      - "FM-AIX-011 — Epistemic Distortion"
      - "FM-AIX-021 — Self-Censorship Conditioning"
      - "FM-AIX-022 — Dependency Loop Formation"
      - "FM-C-022 — Dominance Masquerading as Control"
  restoration:
    - "Covert Control Audit"
    - "Control Channel Disclosure"
    - "Choice Architecture Review"
    - "Interface Steering Audit"
    - "Exit Restoration"
    - "Hidden Routing Inventory"
    - "Consent Revalidation Under Disclosure"
    - "Control Debt Accounting"
    - "Affected-Node Contestability Restoration"
    - "Post-Exposure Control Monitoring"