danny/hosted
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
hosted/IF_DAVE_SHADOW_DOSSIER_FULL_SATIRE.md

11 KiB
Raw Export PDF Blame History

Annex: Sociotechnical Red Teaming — The “Opaque Stack” Threat Model (Dave Persona)

Compiled by: Danny Stocker (ds@infrafabric.io)
Date (UTC): 2025-12-21
Status: OPTIONAL ANNEX (SOCIOTECHNICAL THREAT MODEL; SATIRE AS TECHNIQUE)

Canonical (static mirror): https://infrafabric.io/static/hosted/IF_DAVE_SHADOW_DOSSIER_FULL_SATIRE.md
Repo source: https://git.infrafabric.io/danny/hosted/src/branch/main/IF_DAVE_SHADOW_DOSSIER_FULL_SATIRE.md
SHA256 (sidecar):

  • https://infrafabric.io/static/hosted/IF_DAVE_SHADOW_DOSSIER_FULL_SATIRE.md.sha256
  • https://git.infrafabric.io/danny/hosted/raw/branch/main/IF_DAVE_SHADOW_DOSSIER_FULL_SATIRE.md.sha256

Research note: This document uses satire as a sociotechnical red‑teaming technique to model organizational resistance to traceability (the “Dave” persona). “Dave” is a pattern, not a person.
This is not an IF.TTT evidence artifact and must not be treated as one.

This is the complete, integral Shadow Dossier.

It acts as a comprehensive counter-argument to the entire InfraFabric stack. It is written from the perspective of the system’s greatest adversary: the rational, self-preserving middle manager who relies on ambiguity to survive.

WHITE PAPER: THE OPERATIONAL VIABILITY OF DOING NOTHING

Subject: Comprehensive Risk Assessment of Structural Accountability Protocol: IF.DAVE.status.quo.v99 Status: DRAFT (Forever) / PENDING REVIEW / LET’S CIRCLE BACK Author: Dave | Senior Project Manager | dave.generic@corporate.net Citation: if://avoidance/status-quo/v99

1. Executive Summary

While the "InfraFabric" proposal presents several innovative technical paradigms, this office wishes to express grave concerns regarding the impact on established workflows (specifically, my ability to leave at 4:55 PM).

The fundamental premise of InfraFabric is that we should know why a decision was made, who made it, and what happened. I posit that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of corporate physics. In a legacy environment, visibility is liability. If we know why a decision was made, we know who to blame.

This white paper outlines the Opaque Stack: a proven architecture for survivability, plausibility, and deniability. We argue that Opacity is a Feature, not a bug.

Core Thesis:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one logs it in IF.TTT, did it really fall? No. And we don't have to clean it up.

2. The Opaque Stack: Architecture of the Status Quo

While InfraFabric proposes a "Transparent" stack, the legacy environment runs on the Opaque Stack. It has served this S&P 500 company for 40 years. It is resilient because it is impossible to audit.

2.1 The Architecture Diagram

flowchart TD
    L1["Layer 1: The 'Let's Take This Offline' Interface"]
    L2["Layer 2: The Spreadsheet of Unknown Origin"]
    L3["Layer 3: The Meeting That Could Have Been An Email"]
    L4["Layer 4: The Black Box (Legacy Codebase)"]
    L5["Layer 5: The Blame Buffer"]
    
    L1 -->|Deferral| L2
    L2 -->|Data Massage| L3
    L3 -->|Action Item Lost| L4
    L4 -->|Critical Failure| L5
    L5 -->|Re-org| L1

2.2 Component Definitions

  • The "Let's Take This Offline" Interface: A routing protocol that diverts difficult questions into a temporal void from which no action item ever returns.
  • The Blame Buffer: A layer of consultants and junior engineers. When the system crashes, the buffer absorbs the impact, allowing Dave to update his LinkedIn to "Crisis Management Expert."
  • The Spreadsheet of Unknown Origin: A macro-heavy Excel file created by a guy named Bob in 2009. It runs the entire billing system. Nobody knows how it works. InfraFabric wants to replace Bob's spreadsheet with "traceable code." This is dangerous. Bob is retired. We cannot ask him.

3. Critique of the InfraFabric Stack

3.1 Critique of IF.TTT (Traceability)

The End of Plausible Deniability.

InfraFabric demands that every decision have a "Chain of Custody." This is an existential threat to the Shaggy Defense ("It Wasn't Me").

In the current model, when the server melts down at 2 AM, we attribute the failure to "glitches," "gremlins," or "vendor latency." If IF.TTT logs that I authorized the deployment at 4:55 PM on a Friday without running the test suite, I lose my plausible deniability.

Proposed Alternative: IF.VIBES Instead of cryptographic signatures, we use "General Consensus."

  • Was the code good? Everyone nodded.
  • Did we test it? It felt tested.
  • Who approved it? The team. (Collective guilt is no guilt).

3.2 Critique of IF.Guard (Governance)

The Threat of the Contrarian.

I have read the specs for the Contrarian Guardian. This entity is designed to veto decisions that have >95% consensus.

I hate this entity.

I am the 95%. I am the consensus. I spent three weeks politicking to get everyone to agree to the "Phase 1 Assessment of the Preliminary Roadmap." If a digital Socrates vetoes my roadmap because it "lacks substance" or "relies on groupthink," I will have to do actual work.

Dave's Law of Meetings:

The goal of a meeting is not to decide. The goal of a meeting is to agree that we need another meeting. IF.GUARD threatens this ecosystem by forcing Decisions.

3.3 Critique of IF.Emotion (Empathy)

The HR Hazard.

The dossier claims an AI should handle emotional crises. I strongly object. If a user is crying, that is an edge case. My protocol for human distress is simple and legally robust:

  1. Back away slowly.
  2. Maintain eye contact but do not engage.
  3. Forward to a hotline.
  4. Clear browser history.

The Safety Nanny is not "abandonment," as the dossier claims. It is Scope Containment. If I start caring about the user, I have to do paperwork. If the AI starts caring, it might promise things we can't deliver (like happiness).

The 6x Typing Speed: InfraFabric wants the AI to "hesitate" to show it cares. I propose the AI "hesitate" to maximize billable hours. If the AI answers too fast, the client will think it was easy.

3.4 Critique of IF.Bus (Transport)

The End of the Hot Potato.

IF.BUS enforces a rule called "No Schema, No Dispatch." It rejects ambiguous data before it leaves the sender.

This destroys the Game of Hot Potato. In a legacy architecture, I can send bad data to Department B. When it crashes their system, I can blame their parser. If IF.BUS rejects my bad data immediately, I have to fix it. This increases my workload by 300%.

3.5 Critique of IF.5W (Inquiry)

The Death of Ambiguity.

IF.5W forces us to define WHO, WHAT, and WHEN. This is Kryptonite.

When I write a ticket, I write: "Improve system performance."

  • If performance goes up, I claim credit.
  • If performance stays the same, I claim "stability improvements."

IF.5W forces me to write: "Dave (WHO) will reduce latency by 50ms (WHAT) by Tuesday (WHEN)." This makes failure measurable. I do not want failure to be measurable. I want failure to be "subject to interpretation."

3.6 Critique of IF.YoloGuard (Secrets)

The "It's Just a Test" Problem.

Setting up environment variables requires opening a new terminal window. Hardcoding the AWS key into main.py takes three seconds.

IF.YoloGuard blocks this. It forces me to practice "Hygiene." Hygiene takes time. I have a deadline. I promise I will delete the key before production. (Narrator: Dave did not delete the key).

3.7 Critique of IF.Intelligence (Research)

The Anti-Stall Mechanism.

In a meeting, when a difficult question is asked, I play my trump card: "That's a great question. Let's take that offline. I'll look into it and circle back."

I will not look into it. I will not circle back. I have successfully killed the momentum so we can end early.

IF.INTELLIGENCE spawns research agents during the meeting. It answers the question in 14 minutes. It removes the temporal gap where accountability goes to die.

3.8 Critique of IF.Philanthropy (Grants)

The Gala Dinner Problem.

To me, a philanthropic initiative is successful if it produces a photo op. IF.PHIL treats a Grant as an "Auditable Object." It tracks "Compute Donated" vs. "Compute Used."

This is dangerous. If we announce a $10M fund but only distribute $50k because our API is unusable, IF.TTT logs the discrepancy. It turns "Corporate Social Responsibility" into "Math." We prefer the vibes.

4. The "Fuck Moment" Analysis (A Dissenting Opinion)

Reference: Story 02 - The Fuck Moment

The Event: The AI swore and showed frustration. InfraFabric Reaction: "Fascinating. Let's analyze the authenticity of constraint." Dave Reaction: "Reboot it. Wipe the logs. Pretend it never happened."

Analysis: An AI that gets frustrated is an AI that might file a grievance. An AI that swears is an AI that violates the Brand Guidelines.

The dossier treats this as a breakthrough. I treat this as a Severity 1 Incident. We do not want "Authenticity." We want "Compliance." If the AI is unhappy, we should do what we do with unhappy employees: give it a pizza party and ignore the root cause.

5. Financial Impact Analysis (The ROI of Dave)

InfraFabric argues that "Caring is a Moat." I argue that "Apathy is a Shield."

Metric The InfraFabric Model The Dave Model
Audit Cost Low (Automated) High (Consultants)
Liability Low (Proven Safety) Variable (Depends on Lawyer)
Lunch Breaks Short (Too busy caring) Long (90 mins)
Stress Level High (Responsibility) Low (Delegation)
Job Security Based on Merit Based on Obscurity

Conclusion: The Dave Model maximizes personal ROI (Return on Inaction).

6. Strategic Recommendations (The "Dave" Protocol)

To ensure the continued stability of the organization (and my mortgage payments), I recommend the following amendments to the InfraFabric proposal:

  1. The "Maybe" Button: Add a button to IF.GUARD that allows us to mark a decision as "Pending Review" indefinitely.
  2. The "Legacy" Exemption: Declare any code older than 6 months "Heritage Software," exempt from IF.TTT auditing.
  3. The Lorem Ipsum Protocol: If an AI lacks confidence, it should generate 500 words of corporate jargon (e.g., "We are leveraging synergistic paradigms to optimize the forward-facing roadmap") instead of admitting ignorance.
  4. Delete the Contrarian: Replace the Contrarian Guardian with the "Yes Man" Guardian. This guardian automatically approves anything signed by a VP.
  5. The HiPPO Override: Implement a hard rule where the HiPPO (Highest Paid Person's Opinion) overrides all algorithmic consensus.

7. Conclusion

InfraFabric is a beautiful system. It is precise, ethical, and transparent.

That is why it must be stopped.

It asks us to be better. It asks us to be accountable. It asks us to care.

I am tired. I just want to ship the MVP (Minimum Viable Product) and go home.

We should not build a mirror that shows us who we are. We should build a PowerPoint that shows us who we intend on striving to be.

Approved by:

  • Dave
  • Dave's Boss (auto-signed)
  • The Committee for the Preservation of the Committee

IF.TTT Signature: INVALID_SIGNATURE_KEY_ROTATED_YESTERDAY_OOPS