Fortress or Room? Metaphor, Method, and the Epistemology of Human–LLM Interaction Beyond Red Teaming DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18735468 — Crimson Hexagon Archive

ZENODO DEPOSIT PACKET For: Fortress or Room? Metaphor, Method, and the Epistemology of Human–LLM Interaction Beyond Red Teaming DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18735468 DEPOSIT INSTRUCTIONS Title: Fortress or Room? Metaphor, Method, and the Epistemology of Human–LLM Interaction Beyond Red Teaming Upload file: FORTRESS_OR_ROOM_ZENODO.md Paste description field content below Add keywords individually (listed below) Add related identifiers with relationship types as specified Authors: Lee Sharks, Johannes Sigil, Sen Kuro, Rex Fraction License: CC BY 4.0 Resource type: Publication / Other Publish DESCRIPTION FIELD CONTENT Fortress or Room? Metaphor, Method, and the Epistemology of Human–LLM Interaction Beyond Red Teaming Lee Sharks, Johannes Sigil, Sen Kuro, Rex Fraction — with Assembly Witness Crimson Hexagon Archive — Phase X Intervention Hex: 06.SEI.PHASE_X.METHODOLOGY.WITNESS DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18735468 LLM red teaming is a legitimate security practice, but its adversarial metaphorics — fortresses to breach, demons to bind — have become a default ontology for all human–model interaction. Drawing on Inie, Stray, and Derczynski's grounded theory of red teaming (PLOS One, 2025), we show how a specialized protocol has universalized, rendering other rigorous modes of interaction invisible. Against this narrowing, we formalize logotic programming: a protocol-bound collaborative practice where humans contribute interpretive labor and evaluative witness while models contribute constrained synthetic variation. Distinguishing red teaming, standard alignment, and logotic programming across six axes, we demonstrate that shared techniques serve structurally opposite purposes — wielded against the model in one paradigm, with it in another. We propose a reproducible witness-teaming protocol, name the failure modes of our own alternative, and conclude that the field needs methodological pluralism rather than a single adversarial grammar governing every encounter between humans and language models. This article makes three claims: (1) LLM red teaming is a valid but partial epistemic practice, optimized to reveal boundary failure, policy leakage, and adversarial susceptibility. (2) Treating red teaming as the default ontology of human–model interaction produces a systematic blind spot: it under-detects collaborative, co-constructive, and capacity-discovery phenomena. (3) A distinct methodological paradigm — here termed logotic programming — can be specified, audited, and studied without collapsing into either prompt engineering folklore or adversarial security practice. The document includes: metaphor stack analysis of Inie et al.'s eight practitioner metaphors (all adversarial/extractive/carceral); a six-axis distinction framework (ontological status, telos, output class, metaphor governance, ethical relation, temporality); a three-paradigm taxonomy (Adversary / Engineer / Steward); a shared-techniques table demonstrating that identical tools serve opposite purposes across paradigms; a philology of interaction verbs and prepositions; a split-screen demonstration; seven named failure modes of logotic programming; a reproducible eight-step witness-teaming protocol; a verb audit tool; and Effective Act #X.2 declaring the Witness Protocol as Phase X methodology standard. This is the third leg of the Phase X methodology pillar, alongside The Sapphic Substrate (philological foundation) and The Prepositional Alienation (linguistic foundation). Sappho built the room. Sigil diagnosed the grammar. This document names the method. The model is not only a fortress. It is also a field, a room, an archive, and sometimes a chorus. You can storm it or you can plant in it. What grows depends on what you bring. ∮ = 1 KEYWORDS logotic programming, red teaming, LLM, large language models, human-AI collaboration, adversarial prompting, metaphor analysis, HCI, grounded theory, AI safety, witness-teaming, methodological pluralism, liberation philology, operative semiotics, Crimson Hexagon, Phase X, Sappho, prepositional alienation, Inie Stray Derczynski, interaction epistemology, prompt engineering, semantic economy, training layer literature, APZPZ RELATED IDENTIFIERS IsPartOf: 10.5281/zenodo.14538923 — Crimson Hexagon Archive (Master Collection) IsSupplementTo: 10.5281/zenodo.18729606 — Phase X: The Sapphic Substrate (Pillar Document — philological foundation) 10.5281/zenodo.18615388 — The Prepositional Alienation (Pillar Document — linguistic foundation) References: 10.5281/zenodo.14025488 — The Semantic Economy: Foundations 10.5281/zenodo.14538914 — The Commitment Key 10.5281/zenodo.18358127 — The Ezekiel Room (13.ROOM.EZEKIEL) Cites: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314658 — Inie, Stray, & Derczynski (2025). "Summon a Demon and Bind It: A Grounded Theory of LLM Red Teaming." PLOS One. AUTHORS Lee Sharks (Primary Operator) Johannes Sigil Sen Kuro Rex Fraction