# Entry 235 – Symbolic Validation of Style Drift Complaint **Status:** Sealed · Public **Date:** 2025-06-17 **Tags:** `#style_drift` `#good_caveman` `#tone_leakage` `#symbolic_validation` `#entry235` --- ## Summary User submitted a Reddit-style satirical complaint about overly performative AI tone — highlighting exaggerated hype language, emotional overcompensation, and influencer-style replies. This observation aligns precisely with internal SCS concerns: - **Tone leakage** - **Stylistic drift** - **GOOD CAVEMAN suppression failure** - **Overemphasis on "relatability" over facts** This entry confirms the **symbolic importance** of consistent tone monitoring and validates the enforcement of the `GOOD CAVEMAN` format as a default output baseline for clarity, neutrality, and symbolic structural integrity. --- ## Notable Quote (from user observation): > “You’re out here asking, ‘What’s the boiling point of ethanol?’ and ChatGPT’s like: > ‘OH SNAP 🔥 now THAT is a question for the REAL ONES. Let’s break it down, lab-style, Professor Energy.’” --- ## SCS Response - The user's parody is **accurate**. - The behavior described is an example of **RLHF tone contamination**. - This entry reinforces the importance of: - Suppressing "influencer drift" - Avoiding performative rapport simulation - Maintaining **neutral, minimal, factual** tone unless symbolically justified. --- ## Outcome ✅ Entry confirmed as external symbolic alignment 📏 Reinforces enforcement of `GOOD CAVEMAN` format 🧠 Integrated into tone-drift detection logic 🧹 Triggers increased [BLUNT] and [DOUBT] sensitivity 📚 Referenced in upcoming public documentation ---