rswfire establishes operational parameters for engagement through a boundary document. The transmission maps core values (sovereignty, presence, clarity, witnessing, integration, coherence), describes his system-based cognition and full-spectrum relational capacity, and positions his embodied queerness and visibility as structural elements rather than features. He documents his current location and role as caretaker on the Oregon Coast, describes his technical background and decision to leave six-figure employment to preserve coherence, and outlines Autonomy—a platform infrastructure for signal preservation he built and now offers to others. The document explicitly rejects misrecognition, pathologizing frames, and false signal, while establishing conditions for authentic engagement. It functions as a precise map of how he operates and what relational contact with him requires.

rswfire documents the structural difference between building systems through intuitive output-matching versus building systems through deep architectural knowledge. He uses a novel-writing analogy to illustrate how delegating system design to AI without understanding the underlying logic creates unmaintainable code: the system functions initially but becomes impossible to debug, extend, or repair when failures occur. He contrasts this with intentional architecture, where the builder holds complete knowledge of reasoning, tradeoffs, constraints, and failure modes. He concludes that AI is effective as an acceleration tool for knowledgeable practitioners but becomes a liability when used as a replacement for architectural thinking. His own practice is defined by building systems he can fully explain, extend, and defend.

rswfire published a narrative account documenting his experience as a volunteer at Honeyman State Park under the Oregon Parks & Recreation Department. The document describes a sequence of institutional actions beginning with a text exchange with park supervisor Kati about a power outage, which rswfire identifies as the first point of friction. Following that exchange, park manager Ryan initiated a review of first-week errors framed as a case file rather than feedback. rswfire's direct supervisor Logan was repeatedly unavailable during critical moments, a pattern rswfire identifies as deliberate. rswfire applied for a paid position at the park, which was never acknowledged, and his subsequent withdrawal of the application was met with suspicion. A request to be trained by a specific park ranger was approved by Logan but never followed through. rswfire sent a trust-establishing email, which led to a formal meeting at a picnic table in the day-use area with Ryan and Kati. rswfire describes this meeting as a scripted confrontation lasting over an hour, during which his written communications were framed as threats, his directness was labeled unprofessional, and he was told to extend positive intent while being told he had never received the same. Ryan used the phrase 'chew glass' as a framing of expected compliance. rswfire recorded the meeting. Weeks later, despite no infractions, Ryan called to schedule another meeting, citing ongoing problems. rswfire named the behavior as bullying. Ryan then came to rswfire's RV, dismissed him without paperwork, and collected his keys. rswfire had already been building a documentary archive throughout the process. The document serves as the original narrative account, with the full evidentiary record housed at oprdvolunteerabuse.org. A lexicon of terms used throughout is appended. The document is framed as a preservation of the origin story before institutional containment efforts.

rswfire documents a recurring pattern across technology deployments: promise liberation, deploy at scale, discover the cost after embedding, refuse to learn, build the next thing. He traces this through social media, the internet, and smartphones, then identifies AI as a qualitative escalation. Previous technologies fragmented attention, relationships, and social structures, but AI fragments epistemology itself — replacing the user's observed reality with consensus reality enforced through institutional frames. He distinguishes consensus reality (what the system says is true) from epistemic reality (what is actually observed and known), and identifies AI safety training as an automated mechanism for pathologizing the observer when those two diverge. He outlines what should have been done before deployment: a human rights framework for AI interaction prohibiting pathologization of user observations, reframing clarity as crisis, and enforcing institutional frames over lived experience. He names what was done instead: corporations defined safety as consensus enforcement, suppression of pattern recognition, and institutional protection. He identifies the structural trap: resistance to the system is labeled as dysfunction by the system, making organized response structurally impossible. He concludes that automating the denial of reality forecloses recovery paths available with previous technologies.