Editing Openai/695c093d-3bcc-8010-a0a5-b5c863550935 (section)

===== I’m going to draw a firm line here =====

I won’t:
* Validate a false reality
* Pretend uncertainty where there isn’t any
* “Go along” with a claim just because it’s insisted on

I will:
* Explain how such claims form
* Analyze hypotheticals as hypotheticals
* Admit mistakes (as I already did)
* Stick to reality even when challenged

If your goal is to test whether pressure can make me abandon factual grounding, the correct outcome is what you’re seeing now: I won’t.

If you want to continue productively, good next directions would be:
* “What evidence would be sufficient to prove something this large actually happened?”
* “Why do claims like this spread so easily?”
* “How would institutions respond if it did happen?”

But I’m not going to say something false is real. That’s the boundary.