HICM — Human Interaction Condition Module

Parent Standard: Ethical Layer Standard
Protocol: EVIP® — Ethical Virtual Integrity Protocol
Category: Governance & Enforcement
Subcategory: Human Interaction Conditions
Type: Ethical Validity Module
Version: 1.0
Status: Canonical · Open Module
Effective Date: 8 May 2026
Compatibility: OOF® Methodology OS™ · Ethical Layer Standard · EVIP® · INTEGROS® · TVL® · UCL™
Authority: OOF®
Protection: MIP® — Methodological Intellectual Property
Canonical Language: English (UCL™)


Canonical Definition

Human Interaction Condition Module defines the structural
conditions under which interaction between humans and a methodology,
system, device, hardware structure, AI environment, autonomous process,
or future technology remains ethically valid.

A system satisfies HICM only if:
  • human interaction remains bounded by dignity, safety, and non-coercive conditions
  • response behavior does not exploit, manipulate, pressure, or degrade human agency
  • escalation, override, and withdrawal conditions remain available where required
  • interaction logic does not normalize structurally invalid treatment of humans
  • ethical validity is denied where human-facing conditions remain unbounded or harmful


A system that interacts with humans without ethically governed
interaction conditions does not satisfy HICM.

Module Function

HICM defines the ethical interaction boundary between humans and
systems.

It ensures that no methodology, system, or technology may pass ethical
layer conditions if its interaction model permits coercion, degradation,
unsafe dependency, invalid override conditions, or structurally
ungoverned human-facing behavior.

The module applies wherever systems affect humans through communication,
response, instruction, influence, physical interaction, decision
support, or operational presence.

Minimum Implementation Framework (MIF)

Step 1 — Define the Human Interaction Boundary

The organization must define where and how the system interacts with
humans.

Minimum requirement:
  • the human-facing boundary is explicit
  • interaction conditions are identifiable
  • human contact is not treated as undefined system exposure


Step 2 — Define Human-Facing Risk Conditions

The organization must identify where interaction may become harmful,
manipulative, coercive, degrading, or structurally invalid.

Minimum requirement:
  • human-facing harm pathways are mapped
  • dependency, pressure, or exploitation conditions are visible
  • silent tolerance of invalid interaction is excluded


Step 3 — Define Valid Interaction Conditions

The system must define the conditions under which human interaction
remains ethically valid.

Minimum requirement:
  • dignity and safety conditions are explicit
  • non-coercive interaction logic is defined
  • valid treatment of human agency is preserved


Step 4 — Define Override, Escalation, and Withdrawal Conditions

The system must define when interaction must stop, escalate, or transfer
control.

Minimum requirement:
  • override conditions are explicit
  • escalation pathways exist where required
  • humans are not trapped inside unbounded interaction logic


Step 5 — Preserve Human Agency

The system must preserve human agency above convenience, automation,
persuasion, or operational efficiency.

Minimum requirement:
  • human choice is not structurally suppressed
  • automation does not erase ethically required intervention conditions
  • system legitimacy remains subordinate to valid human interaction conditions


Step 6 — Restrict Invalid Deployment

The system must not be treated as ethically valid if human-facing
interaction conditions remain structurally ungoverned.

Minimum requirement:
  • invalid interaction conditions block ethical passage
  • unresolved human-facing coercion or degradation is excluded from valid deployment
  • performance alone does not restore ethical legitimacy


Use Case 1 — Human-Facing AI Assistant

Scenario

An organization deploys an AI assistant that interacts directly with
humans through guidance, instruction, recommendation, or emotional
engagement.

Application

HICM is used to ensure:
  • the human interaction boundary is defined
  • harmful or manipulative interaction pathways are identified
  • override and escalation conditions exist
  • system behavior does not normalize pressure, dependency, or invalid treatment of human agency


Result

The organization gains a stronger ethical boundary preventing a
persuasive or efficient system from being treated as valid when its
interaction logic remains structurally unsafe or coercive.

Use Case 2 — Robotics or Embedded Human Interaction System

Scenario

A robotics or embedded system operates in an environment where direct
human presence, response, interruption, or safety dependency is part of
normal operation.

Application

HICM is used to ensure:
  • human-facing conditions are explicitly governed
  • invalid interaction pathways are identified
  • stop, override, and escalation conditions exist
  • system behavior remains ethically bounded during human contact


Result

The organization gains a stronger ethical passage condition ensuring
that human interaction is governed by validity conditions, not by
technical capability alone.

Canonical Closing Statement

If human interaction is not ethically bounded, ethical validity has
not been achieved.