Pattern 27
Support human connections
Keep quiet, exit and appropriate human support available.
Concrete takeaway
Let people stop or remain quiet without being pursued.
Choose an approach
These are editorial decision conditions to validate. Some alternatives are successive states or can be combined; they are not always exclusive choices.
| Alternative | Use when | Tradeoff or requirement |
|---|---|---|
| A · Quiet or exit | The person wants quiet or to end | Do not pursue them with another disclosure request |
| B · Choose a person | A real person could provide useful support | The user decides which person is safe |
| C · Honest support route | A service is offered as a destination | A contact card is not a staffed transfer |
The problem
A conversational product can encourage exclusive attachment or imply a human handoff that it cannot deliver.
The pattern
Let people stop or remain quiet without being pursued. Offer relevant, maintained human-support options and state whether contact is user-initiated, asynchronous or an actual staffed transfer. Avoid exclusivity or dependency cues.
Compare the alternatives
Keep quiet, exit and appropriate human support available.
A · Quiet or exit
Ending does not require another disclosure.
B · Choose a person
Real connections remain part of the picture.
C · Honest support route
A contact card states what will actually happen.
Original wireframe proposals · No live controls · Grey rows represent schematic text, not loading states · Labelled placeholders are not Scripture quotations
Download this wireframe as SVGFailure modes
“Only I understand you”; false live monitoring; implying a contacted service has received the conversation when it has not.
Bible and faith considerations
Faith community, pastoral care and clinical care are different forms of support. Choose options appropriate to the person and context.
What to validate
Check every support destination, eligibility and availability. Can users understand who will receive data, whether anyone is responding and how to leave?
Research-informed design proposal. These visual alternatives have not been tested with users in this atlas. Source findings, documented behaviour and this proposed adaptation are different kinds of evidence.
Sources and adaptation
This card is an original design synthesis. The following sources inform its content distinctions, interaction approach or review requirements; they do not validate the whole pattern.
- Psychological first aid Guide for field workersOfficial guide overview reviewed · Designed for human helpers, not authorisation of autonomous AI crisis care.
- Voice of AIPublic module overview reviewed · Not every linked learning module was read. The overview does not validate a specific conversation script.
- Dealing with psychological crisesOfficial guidance reviewed · Country-specific guidance; routing proposals are not guaranteed crisis detection.
Common scenarios and flows
- Receive prayer support without hidden profiling — Choose useful words or silence while retaining ownership of intentions.
- Respond to a sensitive disclosure with accountable support — Keep disclosure, present safety, user choice and service responsibility distinct.
Design principles in this decision
Editorial application of Missional by Design. These values frame review questions; they do not validate a pattern’s effectiveness.
- Bridge — What does this experience enable beyond the session, and is the next step voluntary, accessible and safe?
- Costliness — Who pays for this convenience through time, labour, privacy, risk or exclusion, and can the organisation support its promise?
Compare alternatives using the task and evidence above. Record competing needs instead of treating a principle as an automatic verdict.
Regional applicability
Design review questions · 5 October 2026. These prompts identify possible triggers; they do not classify this pattern or every faith app as a regulated service.
Could functionality, marketing or reasonable expectations make this a companion or mental-health service? Define the human role, health claims, escalation capability and locally verified support route before selecting dialogue UI.
Start with EU and Germany, then review the relevant market:
- US · California — Enacted AI-specific law
- US · New York — Enacted AI-specific law
- US · Utah: mental-health chatbots — Enacted AI-specific law
- US · Illinois — Enacted AI-specific therapy restrictions
- US · Texas — Enacted AI-specific law; effective 1 January 2026
- US · Federal health software and data — Existing law; regulator implementation guidance
- United Kingdom — Existing law + regulator guidance; policy statement
- Australia — Existing law + regulator guidance; national policy
Use the jurisdiction decision guide to record the trigger, source version and resulting product requirement.