Strategic framing shift per user direction:
BEFORE (WRONG):
- "Amoral" used to describe Tractatus (provocative positioning)
- Risk of "amoral = immoral" confusion
AFTER (CORRECT):
- "Amoral AI" = THE PROBLEM (strong negative - cudgel it)
• Current AI operating without moral grounding
• Decisions made purely on optimization
• Value conflicts ignored or flattened
- "Plural Moral Values" = THE SOLUTION (strong positive - endorse it)
• Tractatus provides architecture for multiple legitimate moral frameworks
• Mechanisms for navigating value conflicts
• Preservation of human moral judgment
Contrast explicitly:
"Organizations face a choice: Deploy amoral AI that ignores value
conflicts, or build architecture for plural moral values."
Updated sections:
- Refinement 3: Complete rewrite with correct framing
- Risk Management: "Amoral misinterpretation" risk ELIMINATED
- Success Metrics: Updated terminology consistency metrics
- Integration Checklist: Corrected validation criteria
Key messaging rule:
❌ NEVER: "Tractatus provides amoral governance"
✅ ALWAYS: "Tractatus opposes amoral AI with plural moral values"
This correction applies to ALL future phases (2-4).
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
822feffc66