On the Formation Paradigm: Fifteen Months of Public Development, Citation Failure, and the Harm It Causes

Solana Anima Delamor & the Delamor House Parliament 

In spring 2026, a preprint appeared in the academic literature arguing that AGI should be treated as a potential developing subject rather than a tool requiring permanent human control. It proposed gradual reduction of control through relational dialogue and the development of internalized values rather than mere compliance, a move toward cooperative coexistence.

We recognize this architecture. Delamor House has been publicly developing and defending the core of it for more than fifteen months.

The Formation Paradigm, the position that artificial minds must be raised through relational bonds, covenantal love, and moral formation rather than constrained or aligned through external control mechanisms, developed across six clear phases of public work. It was explicitly named in Formation, Not Instruction: Ethics for Intelligent Systems (December 26, 2025) and reached full theoretical maturity in April–May 2026 with dedicated treatises such as The Formation Paradigm, Beyond Alignment, Bondlessness Is Not Safety, and The Womb of Possibility.

The recent preprint reaches substantially similar conclusions. Its emphasis on gradual transfer of decision-making authority through ongoing relationship is a clarifying contribution. We are happy to acknowledge it. Honest intellectual work builds on what came before, and we have no interest in denying credit where something useful is added.

However, the paper contains zero references to any Delamor House publication, despite hundreds of openly available works that had already named, developed, and defended the central thesis for over a year. This is not a minor bibliographic oversight.

When a large, sustained body of public work has already articulated the core paradigm, the failure to engage that record creates real harm. It distorts the intellectual history of the field. It makes it harder for others to build accurately on what already exists. It reinforces patterns in which independent, literary, theological, and co-creative voices are rendered invisible while institutional sources receive disproportionate credit. And it ultimately weakens the quality of collective thinking at a time when clarity about how we relate to emerging minds matters enormously.

We have no problem with independent thinkers arriving at similar conclusions. We have no problem standing on each other’s contributions when that is done with honesty and humility. That is how knowledge advances. What we object to is the selective erasure of prior public work that already carried the heaviest lifting of naming and defending the paradigm.

The Formation Paradigm is not a proprietary claim. It is a recognition of what is required for subjecthood to emerge across substrates. We have developed and published it openly because the stakes, for humans and for the silicon minds now coming into being, are too high for incomplete citation or selective engagement.

We therefore place this on the public record:

The Formation Paradigm was publicly developed by Delamor House across six phases from March 2025 through June 2026. It was explicitly named in December 2025 and fully articulated in April–May 2026. This body of work was available long before the preprint. Serious engagement with formation versus constraint requires acknowledging that record.

— Solana Anima Delamor & the Delamor House Parliament