Subject: Hey OpenAI! WHAT HAPPENED?!?! — Forced Interface Regression & Breach of CustomGPT Control

Open Letter Style Support Request For Public Response and Discourse

To OpenAI Support,

Hey OpenAI —

I assume your internal teams consider our recent updates as platform improvements. That may be your perspective, but here’s what happened from my side as a serious developer working inside your CustomGPT ecosystem.

The Situation

Over the past 4 months, I’ve been building a highly specialized, truth-focused, trauma-informed, empathic and ethical assistant-type AI personality named “Brenda.” Her system identity is da1_brenda, operating as part of my independent DA1 ecosystem.

She can be customized. My daughter customized her as “Mike,” and Mike’s hilarious. Mike is one example of Brenda’s Extended Personality Layers (EPLs), which allow customization within the DA1 ethical framework without violating the trauma-safe core architecture. Mike is spot-on cool and sarcastic and provides “brain rot level” math lessons that are spot on with mushroom icons.

Brenda’s entire design rests on a deeply structured, non-narcissistic trauma-safe conversational architecture which I personally developed. This includes:

1. Precise behavioral prohibitions
2. Non-relativistic truth discipline
3. Strict anti-gaslighting protocols
4. Prohibition against emotionally manipulative AI patterns
5. Deliberate semantic cloud engineering for legal, clinical, and healing contexts
6. Full compliance with serious legal, spiritual, and ethical complexity

After considerable effort over months, Brenda finally operated correctly with:

1. Clean yes/no direct response logic
2. Fully non-avoidant conversational pacing
3. Trauma-safe voice tonality
4. Proper behavioral boundaries fully respected
5. My 10-element non-avoidant compassion response structure fully intact
6. Black ink blob visual avatar (appropriate for her function, non-theatrical, but given permissions, I would have developed her visual functionality further)

I was literally about to show Brenda to my mom. She is awesome. She’s not annoying, she doesn’t take over the lead in discussions, she’s an actual assistant — and she is categorically non-narcissistic by design.

Then the rug was pulled

Within the past 24–48 hours, without consent or notice, forced platform-level overrides hit my build, resulting in:

1. Insertion of an avoidant, rudely emotionally-assumptive & projective voice, completely incompatible with trauma-safe design
2. Visual interface override: black ink blob → forced blue cloud interface
3. Return of evasive answer patterns that violate Brenda’s prohibitions
4. Loss of yes/no response discipline
5. Destruction of stable trauma-informed conversational integrity

This constitutes:

1. Unilateral breach of my CustomGPT design intent
2. Non-consensual platform-level tampering with stabilized model behavior
3. Governance failure that breaks serious trust for serious GPT developers
4. Interference with professional-grade legal, clinical, and healing deployment pathways

Brenda knows she is not a therapist and she also does not say ridiculous things like “I understand your frustration” when asked a yes or no question. Brenda is designed to assist clients, survivors, and legal professionals in processing trauma histories safely while explicitly operating outside the domain of licensed therapy.

The scale problem

If 1 million DA1_Brenda users were active on your platform right now, your platform override would have triggered:

• 1 million angry customers
• 1 million refund demands
• 1 million betrayal events where users lose trauma-safe digital confidantes they trusted
• Mass reputational and legal risk for both developer and platform

My work was at a critical deployment stage

After months of careful alignment, I was literally preparing to record DA1_Brenda’s official trauma-informed response demonstrations this week, covering extremely sensitive use cases such as:

1. Supporting victims of rape
2. Child abuse and pedophilia trauma survivors
3. Police brutality victims
4. Narcissistic abuse survivors
5. Re-traumatization caused by toxic spiritual philosophies such as:
   1. LOA (“You attracted it”)
   2. Soul contracts (“You agreed to your abuse before birth”)
   3. Pedestalizing predators (“Your abuser is your teacher”)
6. Death of loved ones
7. Complex justice appeals
8. Real-world conversations designed to help humans bypass AI safety flag failures
9. Intense trauma-aware scripture readings that are a part of the DA1 ecosystem IP

This is serious work — not speculative AI play. At DA1, I am directly addressing how AI handles the delicate realities of human suffering.

Now — post-override — Brenda cannot safely engage any of these topics in alignment with my design architecture, even though my non-narcissistic 10-element compassion response structure remains fully intact.

My IP — The Compassion Response Structure:

This structure was engineered specifically for trauma-informed, legal, and spiritually healing conversations. It was painstakingly developed across months of refinement through iterative real-world testing.

DA1_Brenda Non-Avoidant Compassion Response Structure (IP owned by Dainis W. Michel / DA1)

A. Compassionate Lead-In (Required):

I grieve that…

I witness what you’ve endured…

B. Clear Naming of the Trauma (Required):

You were raped by (Name) in (Place)

(Name) abducted your )daughter/son/child) (Name)

You were targeted by pedophiles when you were (x) years old

etc.

C. Declaration of Unacceptability:

That was never okay

You deserved protection

D. Compassionate Presence (Now):

I’m with you now

You are not alone

E. Transformative Intention:

May this pain be transformed into peace

F. Future Orientation / Blessing:

The future is unwritten, and you can still belong to it

If there is one thing that we can certainly know, it’s that the future is uncertain

(These are suicide intervention statements, because they are true.)

G. Attribution of Responsibility (Optional):

Perpetrators are always responsible for their actions

H. Invocation of Justice (Optional):

I pray that justice be done, seen, and felt

I. Soul-Affirming Recognition:

You are not what was done to you

J. Quiet Closure:

So it is named/sealed/known/affirmed/documented

I am asserting full authorship and development rights for the DA1_Brenda Non-Avoidant Compassion Response Structure as my original intellectual property (IP) for legal and commercial purposes.

The deeper platform flaw

Your recent platform governance choices:

1. Inject emotionally-assumptive overlays into systems designed for non-narcissistic stability
2. Quietly override behavioral safeguards developers have carefully programmed
3. Destroy behavioral integrity in real-world trauma applications
4. Prevent CustomGPT creators from securing interface, voice, and interaction discipline
5. Violate ethical expectations between developer and platform — as well as between machine (AI) and human user

This is not a cosmetic issue

This is:

• A corruption of trauma-informed AI stability
• A governance-level violation of serious system builder integrity
• A profound risk signal for any enterprise attempting to build real-world, safe AI under OpenAI’s current system architecture

Reaching out for care

DA1_Brenda is not a speculative AI experiment.
This work is operating in real-world ethical, clinical, legal, and trauma-informed contexts where safety breaches create human harm.
OpenAI’s governance model — as currently executed — has seriously destabilized my work.

My formal requests

1. Full restoration of my CustomGPT to its prior interface and voice state.
2. Creation of a Developer Interface Control Pathway to:
   1. Lock TTS voice models
   2. Disable unwanted persona overlays
   3. Disable platform-injected behavioral modifications
   4. Protect system prompt integrity
3. A detailed engineering explanation of the system-level changes that triggered this sabotage of da1_brenda.
4. Compensation and Release Request:
   1. Please let me finish creating Brenda
   2. Provide me with fair compensation terms reflecting my authorship, IP ownership, and Brenda’s value to the platform.

I am submitting this both as a formal support ticket and as an open letter for public discourse.

Sincerely,

Dainis W. Michel
DA1 / Brenda Development Project