veilbreak | aaldana 001.

This has already been approved by Verin and leadership. This is not a debate on if we should. It is a debate on how.

We will be going forward with additional experimentation to further stabilise the Neuroclast. To do this, we will be taking volunteers among those who have had an implant that is not TIF. The process will include baseline and progressive scans, temporary monitored linking to the Veil and exponentially increasing exposure to experimental Neuroclast packets while simultaneously stimulating the dorsolateral and ventrolateral PAG when disconnecting from it. The goal is to get below a 4% risk of side effects when disrupting or destroying a node.

This procedure is not without risk, and the risks include: chronic pain (headaches/migraines, shooting or radiating pain stemming from the neck down), paralysis/spastic limbs, death.

Volunteers would need to understand and accept the risks as well as undergo a thorough psychological examination. We would need 3-5 volunteers, and where to source those volunteers is the current issue at hand. My personal preference would be to take volunteers from onboard Mnemosyne. Others have suggested we take volunteers from the unVeiled cities. There is also an option for a mixture from both.

Neither sourcing is without risk. We already operate at a resource deficit, and taking agents further increases that deficit. If that volunteer is in a leadership role, we risk years of knowledge and experience. If we take from the cities, it's a security risk to bring them onboard. Propaganda will spread further of us being like the Architects in that we are choosing not to experiment from within.

We're leaving it up you all to decide how we source volunteers. Again, this will be happening, so spare me the ethics debate of experimenting on humans. If there was another way, chances are we've already tried it.

NIKO.

What's going on with you and Domingo? The flirting is obnoxious. Just fuck already.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

That you think you’ll get lucky with me? Bold claim.

Everyone’s thinking about it in some way, whether they would or wouldn’t. It’s complicated.

Don’t take back your offer now.

Normally happens when there’s something unknown with those side effects.

Edited 2026-02-04 13:47 (UTC)

I just think it’s very interesting that you want to.

There’s always an unknown. Risk mitigation isn’t risk elimination.

But to answer your question, my aversion to being put back under, even temporarily, makes me lean no at the moment.

Edited 2026-02-04 13:56 (UTC)

I can’t take your offer because I don’t qualify for your dad’s trial.

You said what a lot of people forgot.

[…] Oh.

My father isn’t known for his gentleness, and being here can already be hard enough. It doesn’t make any of what he said untrue, but scared people look for a way to process things. Anger is easier.

Yeah.

And people don’t like it when reality gets ugly.

Did it fail?

It’s always been ugly. […] I struggle with the ruthlessness of wanting unVeiled to be the test subjects.

Can’t fail if it’s not there anymore.

Funny how ethics can be on a case by case basis.

I see.

All about what a person can live with, I suppose.

Not something I go around advertising.

Not that anyone’s asked for it, but I’m of the opinion that people have a choice to do what they want. Take that choice away, then we’re no better than them.