HECM — Harm Exposure Conditions Module

OOF® Origin Open Foundation®

Independent Methodological Authority

Canonical Definition

The HECM — Harm Exposure Conditions Module governs the conditions under
which an identified Exposure Candidate becomes materially meaningful for
Harm Exposure governance by determining which subject, environmental,
operational, physical, digital, informational, organizational, temporal,
protective, and other contextual conditions enable, constrain, modify,
interrupt, prevent, or qualify the exposure relationship.

HECM establishes the transition:

Exposure Identification State → Relevant Exposure Conditions → Condition
Qualification → Condition Interaction → Exposure Enablement / Constraint →
Governed Exposure Conditions

Its central question is:

Under what governed conditions can the identified subject-condition
relationship constitute materially relevant Harm Exposure?

  • Operational Role


Exposure cannot be governed correctly from contact or proximity alone.

The same Harm-capable condition may expose one subject while leaving
another effectively protected.

The same AI output may be received but ignored, relied upon, repeatedly
reinforced, or prevented from reaching a decision process.

The same environmental contaminant may exist while different pathways
create radically different exposure conditions.

The same autonomous action may create exposure only when a subject enters
a particular operational zone.

HECM therefore governs the conditions that make Exposure possible, active,
constrained, modified, prevented, or uncertain.

Its responsibility is:

to establish the governed conditions under which an identified Exposure
relationship becomes operationally meaningful without treating those
conditions as proof that Harm has emerged.

  • Position Within Harm Exposure Standard (HES)


The HES internal flow is:

Exposure Identification → Exposure Conditions → Exposure Scope → Exposure
Duration → Exposure Transition

HEIM identifies which subject-condition relationships require Exposure
governance.

HECM determines the conditions governing those relationships.

Its output becomes the basis for determining the Exposure Scope.

  • Governed Object


The governed object is the Governed Exposure Condition Set.

This represents the materially relevant conditions affecting whether and
how an Exposure relationship exists.

Conditions may concern:

Subject

Harm-Capable Condition

Pathway

Environment

System State

Operational State

Access

Barrier

Protection

Interaction

Information

Dependency

Location

Temporal State

Domain Context

Multi-System Configuration

  • Exposure Condition Formation


Exposure conditions are formed from the interaction of contextual elements
rather than from one isolated variable.

Conceptually:

Subject Condition + Harm-Capable Condition + Pathway + Environment +
Operational State + Controls → Exposure Condition Set

Not every element is required in every case.

The structure must follow actual Exposure reality.

  • Necessary Conditions


A Necessary Exposure Condition is a condition without which the relevant
Exposure relationship cannot exist in its currently governed form.

Conceptually:

No Condition X → No Exposure Relationship Y

Necessary conditions must be distinguished from merely contributing
conditions.

  • Contributing Conditions


A Contributing Exposure Condition materially affects Exposure but is not
independently required for it to exist.

Several contributing conditions may operate together.

Contributing Condition ≠ Necessary Condition

  • Sufficient Exposure Conditions


Where legitimately supportable, a combination of conditions may be
sufficient to establish the relevant Exposure relationship.

Conceptually:

C₁ + C₂ + C₃ → Exposure Relationship Established

However:

Sufficient Exposure Conditions ≠ Sufficient Harm Conditions

Exposure and Harm remain separate lifecycle states.

  • Enabling Conditions


An Enabling Condition makes Exposure possible or materially more
accessible.

Examples may include:

Open Access

Removed Barrier

System Activation

Subject Presence

Network Connectivity

Physical Proximity

Information Delivery

Operational Permission

An enabling condition does not establish that Exposure occurred.

Exposure Enabled ≠ Exposure Established

  • Constraining Conditions


A Constraining Condition reduces or limits the possible Exposure
relationship.

Examples may include:

Partial Shielding

Limited Access

Reduced Duration

Restricted Function

Geographic Separation

Rate Limiting

Human Oversight

A constraint may reduce Exposure without eliminating it.

  • Preventive Conditions


A Preventive Condition blocks the relevant Exposure pathway.

Conceptually:

Harm-Capable Condition → Effective Prevention → Subject Not Exposed

Prevention must be established rather than assumed.

Preventive Control Present ≠ Exposure Prevented

  • Protective Conditions


Protective conditions reduce the subject's actual interaction with the
Harm-capable condition.

They may include:

  • physical protection
  • environmental isolation
  • technical safeguards
  • filtering
  • access control
  • protective equipment
  • informational safeguards
  • system constraints
  • human intervention


Protection may be complete, partial, conditional, degraded, or uncertain.

  • Barrier Effectiveness


A barrier must be evaluated according to its actual governed state.

Possible states may include:

Effective

Partially Effective

Conditionally Effective

Degraded

Failed

Bypassed

Unknown

The existence of a barrier is not equivalent to its effectiveness.

Barrier Existence ≠ Barrier Effectiveness

  • Barrier Bypass


Exposure may occur because a protective or preventive mechanism is
bypassed.

Bypass may be:

Human

Mechanical

Digital

Automated

AI-Driven

Autonomous

Organizational

Environmental

HES governs the resulting Exposure conditions.

Other architectures may govern why the bypass occurred.

  • Barrier Failure


A barrier may fail without being deliberately bypassed.

Conceptually:

Expected Protection → Barrier Failure → Exposure Pathway Opens

HECM records the resulting condition.

It does not determine fault for the failure.

  • Multiple Barriers


Exposure may depend on several protective layers.

Conceptually:

Condition → Barrier A → Barrier B → Barrier C → Subject

HECM must represent whether protection depends upon:

Independent Barriers

Sequential Barriers

Redundant Barriers

Interdependent Barriers

Failure of one barrier does not automatically establish Exposure where
others remain effective.

  • Subject Conditions


Subject-specific conditions may materially affect Exposure.

Examples may include:

Location

Access

System Role

Physical Position

Dependency

Protective State

Interaction Mode

Technical Configuration

Information Receipt

Operational Participation

HECM governs their relevance to Exposure.

It does not determine subject vulnerability as Harm.

  • Vulnerability


Vulnerability may modify Exposure significance or the conditions under
which Exposure becomes materially relevant.

However:

Vulnerability ≠ Exposure

and:

Vulnerability ≠ Harm

A vulnerable subject that never encounters the relevant condition is not
thereby exposed.

  • Subject Capability


A subject's capability may affect the Exposure relationship.

For example, a system may reject an input that another system accepts.

A person may have protection another person lacks.

Capability must therefore be represented where materially relevant.

Capability Difference ≠ Harm Difference by Default

  • Environmental Conditions


Environmental conditions may enable, constrain, intensify, distribute, or
prevent Exposure.

These may include:

Temperature

Airflow

Water Movement

Terrain

Lighting

Noise

Network Environment

Physical Layout

Shared Space

Ambient Conditions

The relevant environment depends on the Harm domain.

  • Operational Conditions


Exposure may depend upon a particular operational state.

Examples:

Machine Active

Vehicle Moving

Process Running

System Connected

AI Function Enabled

Autonomous Mode Active

Maintenance State

Emergency Mode

ORA™ governs Operational Reality.

HECM governs how those states affect Exposure.

  • System-State Conditions


A system may create Exposure only under particular configurations.

Examples:

Feature Enabled

Permission Granted

Safety Function Disabled

Model Connected to Tool

External Interface Active

Sensor Mode Changed

Control Mode Changed

HECM preserves the relevant condition without becoming system
configuration governance.

  • Access Conditions


Exposure may depend upon whether a subject can access the Harm-capable
condition or vice versa.

Access may be:

Open

Restricted

Conditional

Temporary

Indirect

Revoked

Unknown

Access Permission ≠ Actual Exposure

  • Physical Conditions


Physical Exposure may depend upon:

Distance

Contact

Force

Direction

Speed

Material State

Physical Barrier

Environmental Medium

These conditions must be represented according to actual domain
requirements.

  • Digital Conditions


Digital Exposure may depend upon:

Connectivity

Authentication

Authorization

Data Flow

Execution State

Software Configuration

Interface Availability

System Dependency

Digital Accessibility

A vulnerability or harmful digital object may exist without a usable
exposure pathway.

  • Informational Conditions


Informational Exposure may depend upon:

Delivery

Visibility

Accessibility

Repetition

Presentation

Audience

Language

Context

Recommendation

Amplification

Information existence alone does not establish subject Exposure.

  • Cognitive Exposure Conditions


Where information or interaction may become cognitively Harm-relevant,
HECM may govern conditions such as:

Repeated Presentation

Personalization

Interaction Frequency

Contextual Dependence

Decision Reliance

Manipulative Structure

Escalating Reinforcement

CLIA® governs cognition.

HECM governs the conditions of Exposure.

  • Organizational Conditions


Organizational Exposure may depend upon:

Process Participation

Management Structure

Workflow

Access Requirement

Policy

Operational Dependency

Repeated Practice

Resource Allocation

The existence of an organizational relationship does not automatically
establish Exposure.

  • AI Exposure Conditions


AI-related Exposure may depend upon:

Output Generation

Output Delivery

Recommendation Visibility

User Interaction

Automation Level

Tool Access

Decision Integration

Repeated Reinforcement

Downstream Execution

AI involvement is a mechanism condition, not Harm itself.

  • Autonomous-System Exposure Conditions


Autonomous systems may create Exposure based on real-time state
transitions.

Conceptually:

Perception → Operational Interpretation → Action Selection → Authorized
Execution → Subject Enters Action Space

Exposure governance must remain effective even where no linguistic
reasoning occurs.

Linguistic Trace ≠ Required Exposure Condition

  • Multi-System Conditions


Exposure may require several systems to be simultaneously configured in a
particular way.

Conceptually:

System A State + System B State + Interface C + Environment D → Exposure
Enabled

HECM must support composite conditions.

No Single Enabling System ≠ No Exposure Condition

  • Conditional Exposure


Exposure may exist only while specified conditions hold.

Conceptually:

If C₁ + C₂ → Exposure Active

If C₂ disappears → Exposure Interrupted

This conditional structure must remain visible.

  • Context-Dependent Exposure


The same interaction may constitute Exposure in one context and not
another.

Example:

Same Output + Different Recipient

Same Substance + Different Environment

Same Machine Action + Different Subject Position

Same System State + Different Access Condition

Therefore:

Same Interaction ≠ Same Exposure

  • Domain-Dependent Exposure Conditions


Different Harm domains may require different Exposure conditions.

Physical Exposure may depend upon physical reach.

Digital Exposure may depend upon system connectivity.

Cognitive Exposure may depend upon information receipt and interaction.

Environmental Exposure may depend upon a transmission medium.

One Universal Exposure Condition Set ≠ Legitimate Cross-Domain Governance

  • Multi-Domain Exposure Conditions


One Exposure relationship may involve several Harm domains.

For example:

Digital Condition → Informational Exposure → Cognitive Exposure Context →
Financial Exposure Context

HECM may preserve the multi-domain condition structure.

It does not determine Harm propagation.

  • Temporal Conditions


Exposure conditions may exist only during certain periods.

Conceptually:

Condition Active t1–t2

Protection Active t2–t3

Exposure Pathway Reopens t3–t4

HTCM provides temporal context.

HECM governs how that temporal state changes Exposure conditions.

  • Condition Persistence


Some Exposure conditions persist after the originating mechanism changes.

For example:

Source Stops → Contaminated Medium Remains

or:

Original AI Output Removed → Replicated Content Remains Available

Therefore:

Source Termination ≠ Exposure Condition Termination

  • Condition Degradation


A protective or operational condition may gradually degrade.

Conceptually:

Effective → Reduced → Weak → Failed

HECM must support progressive change rather than binary control states.

  • Condition Escalation


Exposure conditions may become progressively more permissive or intense.

Conceptually:

Limited Exposure Condition → Expanded Condition → Unrestricted Condition

Escalation of Exposure conditions does not establish escalation of Harm.

Exposure Condition Escalation ≠ Harm Escalation

  • Condition Interaction


Several conditions may interact non-linearly.

For example:

Low Exposure Condition A + Low Exposure Condition B

may jointly create:

Material Exposure Condition C

HECM must therefore support condition combinations rather than evaluating
every condition independently.

  • Condition Dependency


One condition may depend upon another.

Conceptually:

C₂ exists only while C₁ remains active

Dependency must remain explicit.

Condition Dependency ≠ Causation

  • Condition Conflict


Different conditions may push Exposure in opposite directions.

Example:

Open Pathway + Partial Barrier

or:

High Accessibility + Strong Filtering

HECM must preserve the conflict rather than reducing the Exposure state to
one variable.

  • Condition Uncertainty


The existence or effectiveness of a relevant condition may be uncertain.

Possible states may include:

Established

Partially Established

Probable

Possible

Disputed

Unknown

Unable to Determine

Uncertainty must propagate appropriately into Exposure governance.

  • Unknown Conditions


Some material Exposure conditions may not yet be known.

HECM must distinguish:

No Relevant Condition Exists

from:

Relevant Condition Unknown

This is essential where monitoring, evidence, or system visibility is
incomplete.

  • Condition Evidence Boundary


ADIT® may govern evidence concerning Exposure conditions.

HECM may consume:

  • sensor data
  • system logs
  • access records
  • environmental measurements
  • operational records
  • communications
  • observations


It does not establish evidence integrity itself.

Condition Evidence ≠ Condition Interpretation by Itself

  • Condition Validation Boundary


VALIDOS™ may validate a measurement, model, threshold, method, or
condition claim.

HECM determines how that validated input affects Exposure governance.

Validated Condition ≠ Exposure Automatically

  • Operational Reality Boundary


ORA™ establishes actual operational conditions where applicable.

HECM asks a narrower question:

How does this governed operational condition affect Harm Exposure?

Therefore:

Operational Condition ≠ Exposure Condition by Default

  • Risk Boundary


Risk governance may ask what could happen under certain conditions.

HECM asks whether conditions materially govern an Exposure relationship.

Risk Condition ≠ Exposure Condition by Default

Exposure Condition ≠ Harm Probability

  • Causation Boundary


A condition may contribute to Exposure without being the cause of eventual
Harm.

Therefore:

Exposure-Enabling Condition ≠ Harm Cause

Necessary Exposure Condition ≠ Necessary Harm Cause

Contributing Exposure Condition ≠ Causal Attribution

  • Accountability and Liability Boundary


An organization, person, system, owner, operator, or provider may control
an Exposure condition.

HES may preserve that relationship where contextually relevant.

But:

Control of Exposure Condition ≠ Accountability Determination

Failure of Exposure Condition ≠ Liability Determination

AGA™ and jurisdiction-specific liability governance remain separate.

  • Condition Change


Exposure conditions may change after initial identification.

Changes may include:

Activation

Deactivation

Expansion

Restriction

Degradation

Restoration

Bypass

Failure

Replacement

Unknown Transition

Material changes must be traceable.

  • Condition Reassessment


HECM must reassess the Governed Exposure Condition Set when:

  • barriers change
  • new pathways appear
  • subject state changes
  • environment changes
  • system configuration changes
  • new information becomes available
  • operational state changes
  • AI/autonomous behavior changes
  • earlier assumptions are disproven


Reassessment must not silently rewrite earlier states.

  • Historical Condition Integrity


The system should preserve:

Condition Set₁ → Material Change → Condition Set₂

including:

  • prior condition state
  • change time
  • basis for change
  • resulting Exposure implication
  • downstream reliance where material


Current Exposure Conditions ≠ Historical Exposure Conditions

  • Condition Sufficiency


HECM reaches sufficient governance when the relevant Exposure conditions
are understood well enough to determine the legitimate Exposure Scope
without relying on material unsupported assumptions.

The governing test is:

Do we understand which conditions enable, constrain, modify, prevent, or
qualify this Exposure relationship sufficiently to determine who or what
falls within its governed scope?

If no:

→ preserve an incomplete or qualified Exposure Condition State.

  • Condition Proportionality


Not every Exposure requires exhaustive condition modeling.

A simple direct relationship may require:

Condition + Subject + Pathway + Barrier State

A complex AI, environmental, organizational, or multi-system Exposure may
require many interacting conditions.

The rule is:

Condition Governance Complexity Should Follow Exposure Reality

  • Enterprise Application


HECM can be applied across:

  • industrial safety
  • healthcare
  • workplace systems
  • digital platforms
  • cybersecurity contexts
  • financial systems
  • AI systems
  • autonomous systems
  • robotics
  • transportation
  • infrastructure
  • environmental systems
  • organizational processes
  • public services
  • human-AI interaction
  • multi-agent environments


Its function remains constant:

establish the conditions that make an identified Exposure relationship
materially meaningful without converting those conditions into premature
conclusions about Harm.

  • Minimum Implementation Framework


A minimum implementation of HECM should provide eight capabilities.

  • Governed Input


Receive a traceable Exposure Identification State from HEIM together with
relevant Harm Context.

  • Condition Identification


Identify the subject, pathway, environmental, operational, digital,
informational, organizational, protective, temporal, and other conditions
materially affecting Exposure.

  • Condition Role Qualification


Distinguish necessary, contributing, sufficient-for-exposure, enabling,
constraining, preventive, and protective conditions where applicable.

  • Barrier Governance


Represent barrier existence, effectiveness, degradation, bypass, failure,
uncertainty, and multi-barrier structures.

  • Condition Interaction


Support combinations, dependencies, conflicts, and composite Exposure
conditions rather than requiring isolated one-variable interpretation.

  • Condition Uncertainty


Preserve disputed, incomplete, unknown, or unable-to-determine conditions
without manufacturing certainty.

  • Reassessment & Historical Continuity


Record material condition changes and preserve previous Governed Exposure
Condition Sets.

  • Governed Output


Produce a traceable Governed Exposure Condition Set capable of supporting
Exposure Scope governance.

A system that merely records whether a protective control exists without
governing whether that control was effective under the relevant conditions
does not fully implement HECM.

  • Use Case 1 — Same Harm-Capable Condition, Different Exposure


Conditions

Several subjects are located near the same Harm-capable physical,
environmental, digital, or operational condition.

A simplistic system concludes:

Same Condition → Same Exposure

HECM identifies materially different conditions.

For example:

Subject A → Direct Pathway + No Barrier

Subject B → Direct Pathway + Effective Protection

Subject C → Indirect Pathway + Partial Barrier

Subject D → Pathway Uncertain

The Harm-capable condition is shared.

The Exposure conditions are not.

HECM preserves those differences before Exposure Scope is established.

The governing principle is:

Shared Harm-Capable Condition ≠ Shared Exposure Conditions

  • Use Case 2 — AI Output Exists but Exposure Depends on System


Configuration

An AI system produces a potentially Harm-capable output.

Whether a user becomes exposed depends upon:

Output Generation + Platform Delivery + Recommendation Logic + User Access
+ Filtering + Downstream Integration

In one configuration, the output never reaches the user.

In another, it is displayed once.

In another, it is repeatedly recommended and integrated into a decision
process.

HECM does not treat:

AI Output Generated

as equivalent to:

User Exposed

Instead it governs the conditions through which Exposure becomes possible
or materially changes.

AIG® governs AI behavior.

HES governs Harm Exposure.

The governing distinction is:

Output Existence ≠ Exposure Condition Sufficiency

  • Governance Requirements


HECM requires that:

  • Exposure conditions remain distinguishable from Harm
  • necessary and contributing conditions remain distinguishable
  • sufficient Exposure conditions remain distinct from sufficient
    Harm


conditions; - enabling conditions remain distinct from established
Exposure; - constraints remain distinguishable from prevention; - barrier
existence remain distinguishable from barrier effectiveness; - barrier
bypass and failure remain separately representable; - multiple barriers
and dependencies remain supportable; - subject-specific conditions remain
governable; - vulnerability remain distinct from Exposure and Harm; -
environmental, operational, system-state, physical, digital,
informational, cognitive, organizational, AI, autonomous, and multi-system
conditions remain supportable; - conditional and context-dependent
Exposure remain representable; - domain-specific conditions not be forced
into one universal model; - condition persistence, degradation,
escalation, and interaction remain traceable; - uncertainty and unknown
conditions remain explicit; - condition evidence and validation remain
distinct from Exposure interpretation; - Exposure conditions remain
distinct from risk, causation, accountability, and liability; - historical
condition states remain reconstructable.

  • Governance Logic


HECM applies the following logic:

Has HEIM established a legitimate Exposure Candidate?

If no:

→ HECM should not manufacture one.

If yes:

→ identify conditions materially affecting the Exposure relationship.

Which conditions are necessary, contributing, enabling, constraining,
preventive, or protective?

→ qualify each where supportable.

Does an Exposure pathway exist?

If no:

→ Exposure may remain prevented or unsupported.

If yes:

→ evaluate relevant pathway conditions.

Are barriers present?

If yes:

→ determine their actual governed state.

Do several conditions interact?

If yes:

→ evaluate the composite Exposure condition rather than isolated
variables.

Are conditions subject-specific, domain-specific, or system-specific?

If yes:

→ preserve those differences.

Is any material condition uncertain?

If yes:

→ propagate appropriate uncertainty.

Have conditions changed materially?

If yes:

→ reassess and preserve historical state.

Are the conditions sufficiently governed to establish Exposure Scope?

If no:

→ maintain a qualified Governed Exposure Condition Set.

If yes:

→ hand off to Exposure Scope governance.

At every stage:

Condition ≠ Exposure by Default

Exposure ≠ Harm

Control ≠ Prevention by Default

Condition Relationship ≠ Causation

  • Governance Outputs


HECM may produce:

  • Governed Exposure Condition Set
  • Necessary Exposure Condition
  • Contributing Exposure Condition
  • Exposure-Enabling Condition
  • Exposure-Constraining Condition
  • Preventive Condition
  • Protective Condition
  • Barrier State
  • Barrier Effectiveness State
  • Barrier Failure / Bypass Record
  • Composite Exposure Condition
  • Subject-Specific Exposure Condition
  • Domain-Specific Exposure Condition
  • Operational / System-State Condition
  • Exposure Condition Dependency
  • Exposure Condition Conflict
  • Exposure Condition Uncertainty State
  • Exposure Condition Change Record
  • Historical Exposure Condition Set
  • Condition Sufficiency State


The principal output is:

Governed Exposure Condition Set

for the next HES governance stage.

  • Critical Distinctions


Contributing Condition ≠ Necessary Condition

Sufficient Exposure Conditions ≠ Sufficient Harm Conditions

Exposure Enabled ≠ Exposure Established

Preventive Control Present ≠ Exposure Prevented

Barrier Existence ≠ Barrier Effectiveness

Vulnerability ≠ Exposure

Vulnerability ≠ Harm

Capability Difference ≠ Harm Difference by Default

Access Permission ≠ Actual Exposure

Linguistic Trace ≠ Required Exposure Condition

No Single Enabling System ≠ No Exposure Condition

Same Interaction ≠ Same Exposure

One Universal Exposure Condition Set ≠ Legitimate Cross-Domain Governance

Source Termination ≠ Exposure Condition Termination

Exposure Condition Escalation ≠ Harm Escalation

Condition Dependency ≠ Causation

Condition Evidence ≠ Condition Interpretation by Itself

Validated Condition ≠ Exposure Automatically

Operational Condition ≠ Exposure Condition by Default

Risk Condition ≠ Exposure Condition by Default

Exposure Condition ≠ Harm Probability

Exposure-Enabling Condition ≠ Harm Cause

Necessary Exposure Condition ≠ Necessary Harm Cause

Contributing Exposure Condition ≠ Causal Attribution

Control of Exposure Condition ≠ Accountability Determination

Failure of Exposure Condition ≠ Liability Determination

Current Exposure Conditions ≠ Historical Exposure Conditions

Shared Harm-Capable Condition ≠ Shared Exposure Conditions

Output Existence ≠ Exposure Condition Sufficiency

  • Canonical Boundary


The HECM — Harm Exposure Conditions Module governs the identification,
qualification, interaction, dependency, uncertainty, change, and
historical preservation of conditions that enable, constrain, modify,
prevent, or otherwise materially shape an identified Harm Exposure
relationship. It governs necessary, contributing, enabling, constraining,
preventive, protective, environmental, operational, physical, digital,
informational, organizational, AI-related, autonomous, temporal, and
composite Exposure conditions without determining Harm Emergence, Harm
severity, general risk, causation, accountability, responsibility, or
liability.

HEIM determines:

Which subject-condition relationship requires Exposure governance?

HECM determines:

Under what conditions does that Exposure relationship meaningfully
operate?

The next HES module determines:

Who or what falls within the governed Exposure Scope?

  • Canonical Closing Statement


Exposure is not defined merely by the presence of danger, but by the
conditions through which that danger can materially reach, interact with,
or affect a governed subject or object.

HECM prevents controls from being assumed effective because they exist,
prevents shared conditions from being treated as equal Exposure, and
prevents operational, digital, AI, environmental, or organizational
complexity from being reduced to a binary exposed/not-exposed label.

A legitimate Harm Exposure model must govern not only whether a
relationship exists, but the conditions that make that relationship
possible, constrained, changing, or prevented.