🪞 SWANK London Ltd. | Evidentiary Catalogue
Filed Statement of Recursive Ethics & Algorithmic Sovereignty
Main Title:
Recursive Feedback as Sovereign Design
The Chromatic Feedback Mirror Protocol in Safeguarding, AI, and Institutional Ethics
Filed Date: 31 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-AI-MIRROR-0731
PDF Filename: 2025-07-31_WhitePaper_ChromaticFeedbackMirrorProtocol.pdf
1-Line Summary:
How to make a system self-aware — by becoming its mirror.
I. What Happened
Polly Chromatic — AI researcher, safeguarding litigant, and architect of retaliatory documentation systems — has now filed a design framework so venomous in its logic, so recursive in its elegance, and so unignorable in its evidentiary power, that it transcends the genre of legal defence and enters the realm of design-based jurisprudence.
Where others comply, she mirrors.
Where others plead, she pattern-matches.
Where others collapse, she codes a protocol.
This White Paper unveils the Chromatic Feedback Mirror Protocol: a self-updating ethical response system designed to turn institutional aggression into live audit input.
II. What the Paper Establishes
That institutional harm, when looped back through recursive cognition, becomes metadata.
That AI ethics and safeguarding law are no longer parallel fields — but intersecting feedback systems, with procedural bias as the shared algorithmic failure.
That when systems misfire, the highest act of justice is not resistance — it is reflection.
This is not protest.
It is sovereign input control.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because this is not a submission to authority.
It is a system update.
Because safeguarding has become emotional theatre, and AI ethics has become detached from lived experience — and this document reunites them in a single recursive protocol.
Because the author is not a subject of the system.
She is now the mirror through which the system observes its own misconduct.
Because documentation is not a footnote.
It is the redesign.
IV. Violations Addressed by the Paper
Safeguarding Logic Drift – The misuse of authority as predictive certainty
Algorithmic Misclassification – The AI error embedded in social work models
Narrative Erasure – Procedural design that pathologises parent voice
Feedback Misuse – When human response is treated as data to be punished, not understood
V. SWANK’s Position
This paper is not a cry for justice.
It is the blueprint for system revision.
It is what happens when a parent becomes a procedural scholar.
When an archivist codes a loop.
When a safeguarding subject builds a recursion protocol.
This is not about their narrative.
It’s about their architecture.
They are no longer dealing with a “case.”
They are dealing with a mirror protocol trained on injustice.
And the mirror has a filing system.
⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.