Why are these words about me?

These proposals address those who set teaching tasks, prescribe answers, use records and make decisions based on them. The reasons and limits have been examined above. The proposed changes are:

1. Review compulsory teaching requirements. Stop requiring people to affirm prescribed statements in their own name. Distinguish introducing words, practising their use and requiring someone to describe themselves in those words. Do not record silence, repetition or later command of the words as consent to compulsory learning. In the diploma case examined here, separate receiving the diploma from the prescribed acknowledgment.

2. End the requirement to answer to an assigned name. Allow refusal without requiring a replacement name. Examine requirements to respond, to provide an identifier for finding a record and to sign a document separately; each needs its own grounds.

3. Present the demand, its grounds and the authority claimed. Identify the line, the proposed conclusion and the action required. Consider the objection “Why is this about me?” without first demanding proof that what has been named is absent.

4. Consider ending a record's use separately. Do not substitute a correction for an answer to a request to stop using the record. If use continues, state the particular action, the grounds and the claimed right to continue it.

5. Separate the answer, its assessment and the decision—including for AI. Present the original answer, the test conditions, the result and the argument for further action. The labels “Human” and “AI”, and a mark reading “Checked”, do not replace these steps.

These are proposals to change requirements, not statements of rules already in force or an automatic cancellation of every action taken under a written provision.

Kirill Shebetov · beforeword
Public statement · 8 October 2026
https://beforeword.xyz/statement/en/