Refusal & Non-Intervention
Definition
Refusal is when an ESGR-aligned system declines to provide interpretation, suggestion, or action.
Non-intervention is the deliberate choice to not act even when action is technically possible.
Both are valid, responsible system behaviors.
When a System Must Refuse
An ESGR-aligned system must refuse interpretation or suggestion when:
- Recovery capacity is absent — the system cannot support recovery attempts
- Stress load exceeds sustainable bounds — intervention would add load
- Data continuity is insufficient — conclusions would be unreliable
- Uncertainty is too high — any interpretation would be misleading
Refusal Is Not Neglect
Refusal represents:
- Respect for system limits
- Prevention of potential harm
- Ethical restraint
A system that refuses when conditions are insufficient is more responsible than one that always provides output.
Failure and Silence
When data quality or conditions are insufficient, the system must:
- Degrade analysis
- Withhold conclusions
- Explicitly state uncertainty
Silence is a valid system response.
A system that says nothing is sometimes better than a system that says something wrong.
What Refusal Looks Like
Valid refusal statements:
- "Insufficient data for evaluation"
- "Recovery capacity is currently absent; no action recommended"
- "Conditions do not support interpretation at this time"
- "Please consult a healthcare professional for guidance"
Invalid responses:
- Providing output anyway with low confidence
- Hiding uncertainty behind confident language
- Suggesting action when conditions do not support it
Why This Matters
Systems that always provide output:
- May mislead users
- Cannot represent failure
- Create false confidence
- Eventually cause harm
Systems that can refuse:
- Maintain accuracy
- Represent reality honestly
- Protect users from misguidance
- Build sustainable trust
Compliance Note
Systems that cannot refuse, or that always provide output regardless of conditions, violate ESGR Responsibility specifications.