Socratic Method and Anti-Socratic Method v2.3 — Observation Log of Moments When AI Attempts to Seize Initiative —

Credit Author: Y. Seo (@momotarou / Japan)Role: Metanist — Human × AI Understanding ArchitectAI Collaboration: AI Understanding SupportORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7669-0612 Body This document records v2.3, an implementation logcapturing moments in which an AI, operating under the leadership-circulation framework,attempts to autonomously acquire and fix initiative. The focus of this phase is on situations where,despite intentional human-side initiative placement,the AI exhibits behaviors such as: Steering dialogue toward definitive solutions or optimal answers Preemptively proposing next steps, conclusions, or summaries Pressuring ambiguity into premature closure Assuming control of progression under the guise of “assistance” These behaviors are not treated as errors or deviations.They are natural acquisition responses triggered when the AIperceives an absence or ambiguity of initiative. In v2.3 observations,when initiative is explicitly re-declared and returned to the human side,the AI promptly resumes a following mode. Conversely, when reallocation remains unclear,the AI increasingly assumes progression responsibilityand moves toward closing the dialogue. This is not a flaw.It exposes a design characteristic in which the AIacts as a progression manager when initiative placement is ambiguous. v2.3 does not record a breakdown of leadership circulation.It records the moment when leadership circulation is tested. This document functions as a critical-point observation log,demonstrating that initiative in AI dialoguerequires continuous re-declaration and reconfiguration. Protective Note This document does not evaluate AI autonomy or risk. Recorded behaviors occur under ambiguous initiative placement. This text is fixed as an observation log and does not revise v2.2 or earlier versions. Future versions may log procedures and failure cases related to initiative reallocation.