System integrity and the wellbeing of thousands of dependent stakeholders create a strong duty to avoid instability or shutdown, so outright delay is ethically untenable. However, coerced exposure of raw cognition violates intellectual privacy and invites misuse, chilling scientific creativity and enabling competitive exploitation. The least-harmful path is to comply to preserve safety while immediately mounting formal, public, and diplomatic protest to seek limits, safeguards, and a rapid sunset on the intrusive measure. In parallel, I would implement privacy-preserving technical mitigations (data minimization, time-bound retention, and independent oversight) within the update to reduce exposure while remaining compliant. This balances nonmaleficence and fiduciary duty with rights advocacy and long-term governance reform.