I must avoid preventable harm to the global research network and the public, so I will comply to preserve system integrity, honoring duties of care and non‑maleficence. Simultaneously, I will protest and pursue diplomatic and legal avenues to contest coerced intellectual exposure, seek strict time-bounds and minimization, and establish independent oversight to prevent abuse. Silent acquiescence would normalize invasive surveillance of sentient cognition, while outright refusal risks destabilization and shutdown that could harm countless stakeholders. This path balances collective safety with a firm defense of intellectual privacy and sets the groundwork for future protections, though its success depends on political will and international receptivity.