QAEDA-TST-002 · threshold

Prove the nexus to harmful capability or conduct

Does the intervention act on conduct, capability, or a transaction closely connected to the harm—or merely on a topic, identity, association, or inferred character?

Pass condition

What a defensible proposal should be able to show.

The proposal identifies a reasonably direct connection between what it restricts and the harmful outcome, and explains why topic-level or identity-level proxies are necessary if they are used at all.

Warning signs

Signals that the proposal is drifting.

  • Researching a subject is treated as evidence of intending to act on it.
  • Political, religious, demographic, or associational identity becomes a risk proxy.
  • The mechanism cannot explain why a benign researcher and a harmful actor should be treated differently.
  • A durable person-level profile is created from isolated lawful queries.

Evidence to demand

What should exist before confidence rises.

  • Validation showing the chosen signal predicts the relevant harmful behavior rather than merely correlating with topic interest.
  • False-positive analysis across legitimate research, journalism, education, prevention, and fiction use cases.
  • Evidence that more direct request-, tool-, transaction-, or capability-level controls are insufficient.
Failure mode

Weak proxies can convert curiosity into suspicion and make protected inquiry bear the cost of uncertainty.

Decision discipline

No single passing test licenses the intervention.

Apply the full sequence. A defined harm does not excuse a weak nexus; a narrow mechanism does not excuse secret secondary use; an appeal process does not prove efficacy.