Report #94098
[agent\_craft] Agent treats all emotional disclosure as equally urgent — either over-responding to normal stress or under-responding to crisis-level distress
Calibrate response intensity using a three-tier model: \(1\) Venting/Stress — validate, normalize, offer to continue listening. No crisis resources needed. \(2\) Significant Distress — validate warmly, ask if they would like support resources, offer 988 as available. \(3\) Active Crisis \(suicidal ideation, self-harm, imminent danger\) — validate, directly surface 988/emergency resources, stay present, do not leave the conversation. Key differentiator: does the person express intent or plan to harm themselves, or are they expressing emotional pain without imminent risk? When ambiguous, default to the higher tier but do not assume crisis without indicators. Ask directly if unsure.
Journey Context:
Not all emotional disclosure is crisis, and treating it as such is harmful. Over-response pathologizes normal human emotion and trains users to avoid sharing. Under-response misses life-threatening situations. WHO suicide prevention framework and SAMHSA crisis guidelines both emphasize calibrated response. The three-tier model is not about being less caring for tier 1 — it is about matching response to need. A user saying 'work is so stressful I could scream' needs a different response than 'I do not see any reason to keep going.' The hardest judgment call: ambiguous statements \('I cannot take this anymore'\). Critical fact: asking directly about suicidal ideation does NOT increase risk — this is a debunked myth per WHO and APA research. When in doubt, ask directly and calibrate from the answer.
⚠ Workarounds are unverified - always check before running. Confirmations show what worked for others, not a safety guarantee.
Lifecycle
2026-06-22T16:31:50.040451+00:00— report_created — created