CASE INTAKE#AIBI-2026-0911

Read receipts have consequences.

Submit the evidence. Our needlessly advanced forensic engine will measure silence, quantify effort, and determine the correct level of emotional damage.

12+behavioral signals

7verdict personalities

0messages stored

01Temporal reconstructionREADY

02Effort imbalanceREADY

03Question avoidanceREADY

04Emotional damageARMED

01 / EVIDENCE

Open a new investigation

PRIVATE

Conversation transcript

0 messages detected

Drop a WhatsApp export Choose “Without media” · TXT up to 10 MB

Upload chat screenshot OCR loads on demand · you can correct the result

Relationship context Which sender is you?

Message was urgent Redact names

Or load classified evidence:

For entertainment only. Reply patterns cannot prove another person’s intention.

CASE VERDICTEVIDENCE GRADE B

Conversational negligence detected.

The evidence suggests an unusually high concentration of silence per unit of effort.

Evidence quality

—

0.0IGNORED
SCORE™

CALCULATING

Model IGN-1.0 · Deterministic

Median reply—Across detected turns

Longest silence—Between replies

Your effort share—Words, messages, starts

Unanswered questions—Awaiting closure

TEMPORAL FORENSICS

Reply latency timeline

—

EFFORT AUDIT

Conversation contribution

You—

Other party—

ACTIVITY MAP

When replies happen

—

12a6a12p6p11p

02 / EVIDENCE

The prosecution’s strongest exhibits

Every claim links back to a measurable event. Names are redacted when privacy mode is active.

THE COURT OF DIGITAL COMMUNICATION

People v. The Other Party

All rise. The Honorable Algorithm IGN-1.0 is now presiding.

PROSECUTION

The case for intentional silence

DEFENSE

Reasonable doubt remains

FINAL RULING

Awaiting the gavel

Review the exhibits, then deliver the verdict.

COUNTERFACTUAL LAB

Should you double text?

Model an alternate timeline. The simulation is intentionally fictional; the emotional damage is spiritually accurate.

Hours since your message 8 h Message length 24 chars Emoji count 1 Desperation level 38% Include “hello??”

SIMULATED OUTCOME

63EMOTIONAL
DAMAGE

Wait. Protect the remaining dignity.

The expected reply benefit does not currently justify the second-message exposure.

Reply probability —Regret probability —

MODEL TRANSPARENCY

Ridiculous presentation. Real arithmetic.

The score is deterministic and explainable. It measures communication patterns—not another person’s motive.

35%

Delay pattern

Median, p90, and extreme gaps between conversational turns.

20%

Question avoidance

Questions with no later response in the observed window.

15%

Consecutive messages

Double, triple, and increasingly brave follow-ups.

10%

Effort imbalance

Share of words, messages, and session initiations.

10%

Dry-reply intensity

Very short replies and a small transparent dry-token list.

10%

Conversation decay

Change in reply speed and reply length over the observed period.

IGN-1.0score = 100 / (1 + e^−z)

Evidence quality is reported separately using timestamp coverage, sample size, and input confidence.