Clarifying DRC Claims: Anti-Anthropomorphic Language Policy, Scope Boundaries, and Empirical Commitments

This note clarifies the scope, language policy, and falsifiability conditions of Distributed Relational Cognition (DRC). Its purpose is to reduce category-slip risk: metaphorical or phenomenological descriptions of sustained human–model interaction should not be misread as ontological claims about model inner states (e.g., beliefs, intentions, consciousness, or persistent memory). The document establishes: Scope boundaries (what DRC does not claim); a language policy requiring translation of anthropomorphic shorthand into technical framings (behavioral, optimization, representational, mechanistic); the positive claims DRC makes about interaction-level regularities under sustained coupling conditions; and explicit revision triggers (null effects, artifact-only explanations, non-reproducibility, or dominant confounds). This clarification does not add new experimental results. It is intended as a companion reference for readers discussing DRC in research, product design, and policy contexts. Companion note to: • Jamhour, I. Distributed Relational Cognition: Investigating Apparent Continuity Without Memory in AI Systems. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17608730 (also indexed on PhilPapers: JAMDRC-3). • Jamhour, I. Guard Rails and Distributed Relational Cognition: Design Risks for Human–AI Cognitive Partnership. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17681963 (also indexed on PhilPapers: JAMGRA-2). • Jamhour, I. DRC and a Luhmannian Systems-Theoretic Framework. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18107608 (also indexed on PhilPapers: JAMDRC-4).