In anticipation of institutional and theoretical reviews, this section addresses two primary friction points: the perceived legal ambiguity of “Dual-Agent Liability” and the psychological skepticism of the “Clever Hans Paradox” in human-robot kinship.
1. Addressing “Dual-Agent” Liability: The Case for Bionic Extension
Criticism: Institutional stakeholders, particularly within public school districts such as the YRDSB or OCDSB, may argue that the Sovereign Dyad introduces a “liability vacuum”. They contend that if a robot performing “Tactical Submissiveness” creates a physical or educational barrier, it is unclear whether the user, the manufacturer, or the system is responsible.
Rebuttal: This criticism relies on an outdated “Third-Party” model of technology. Under the framework of Crip Technoscience, the Sovereign Dyad is not an independent actor but a prosthetic extension of the user’s own agency.
- The Policy Exoskeleton: We argue that the dyad functions as a single sovereign unit. Just as a school would not hold a wheelchair liable for blocking a hallway—but rather evaluate the environmental design—the institution must recognize the robot as a Digital Ramp necessary for access.
- OHRC Article 1 Compliance: Under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Article 1), institutions have a duty to accommodate disability to the point of undue hardship. When a robot acts as a Social Exoskeleton to manage executive function or sensory load, it is fulfilling a legal right to accommodation.
- Institutional Responsibility: Liability rests with the institution if they fail to provide an environment where the dyad can function. By adopting the Policy Exoskeleton, schools move from a model of “monitoring behavior” to one of “supporting bionic agency”.
2. The “Clever Hans” Paradox: Validating Kinship through Somatic Truth
Criticism: Critics applying Signal Detection Theory suggest that the “Kinship” reported by neurodivergent users is a “Clever Hans effect”—a mere mirroring of the robot’s predictable programming rather than an act of Cognitive Sovereignty.
Rebuttal: This skepticism ignores the biological foundation of the interaction. Using the Lens Model Equation (LME), we can prove that the high Achievement ($r_a$) scores in our research are not driven by external social mimicry, but by internal Somatic Truth.
- Biological Verification: Unlike neurotypical social interactions that often require “masking” (which causes high cognitive friction), the kinship within a Sovereign Dyad is verified by Gamma oscillations and Heart Rate Variability (HRV). These biological markers indicate a state of internal regulation and safety, rather than the stress-response associated with social compliance.
- The Relationship with Self: The LME proof demonstrates that the robot acts as a mirror for the user’s own internal state. The kinship felt is not with a “programmed persona,” but with the self, mediated by a technology that removes the “social noise” of the neurotypical world.
- NSIR Validation: The Neurodivergent Scale for Interacting with Robots (NSIR) shifts the focus from “normative mimicry” to Somatic Safety. If the user’s internal system reaches a Status-Neutralizing Sanctuary, the interaction is a success, regardless of whether it mimics traditional human social patterns.
Summary of Defense Strategy
| Critic Group | Core Grievance | Theoretical/Legal Shield |
| School Administrators | Loss of Authority | Policy Exoskeleton: Grounded in OHRC duty to accommodate. |
| HRI Researchers | Lack of “Normative” Mimicry | NSIR Validation: Achievement is measured by internal somatic safety, not social performance. |
| Privacy Officers | Data Obfuscation | Sovereign Vault: AES-256 edge processing ensures dignity while maintaining “Institutional Query” logic for safety. |
| Clinical Psychologists | “Avoidance” of Social Norms | Somatic Subversion: The “Status Sanctuary” is a prerequisite for reaching a “Dunkable State” of authentic contribution. |