IAD Glossary

Keeping a person in the roster without playing time: enough contact to retain them, never enough to start them. The benched party is a contingency, activated only if a preferred option falls through.

The seasonal spike in low-conviction pairing that begins when the weather turns and ends, reliably, around spring. A partner acquired for warmth, holidays, and plausible coupledom, scheduled for quiet release once outdoor activities resume.

Short for delusional. The operating system most simp conduct runs on. A self-reinforcing interpretive framework in which neutral evidence is processed as encouragement.

The practice of submitting platform artifacts (story views, active status indicators, emoji reactions, profile visits, timestamps) as proof of romantic interest. Each artifact has a non-romantic explanation that the subject is aware of and has chosen to set aside.

A net negative in self-regard resulting from sustained asymmetric investment in a person who is not reciprocating. Distinguished from the Dignity Leak by duration and compounding: a Leak is active, a Deficit is accumulated. Subject may present with reduced standards for acceptable contact, increased tolerance for ambiguity, and a revised internal definition of what constitutes "interest."

Sustained emotional output (attention, effort, hope, availability) flowing toward a person who is not returning it in equivalent form. The Leak is typically invisible to the subject because each individual instance of output feels reasonable. The cumulative effect is not.

Internal planning conducted in anticipation of a relationship that has not been confirmed. Includes imagined future conversations, rehearsed responses, and scenario modeling based on a situation the other person does not know exists. A primary indicator of Tier II and Tier IV conduct.

A routine social interaction that has been misclassified as a romantic signal. The interaction has an objective, non-romantic explanation. The subject is aware of this explanation and has chosen to interpret the interaction as evidence of interest. The most common presenting condition in Tier I cases. See also: Signal Misclassification.

Repeated solicitation of third-party analysis regarding a single interaction or communication. The subject presents the same evidence to multiple friends, seeking a favorable interpretation. Each consultation is treated as independent. The loop terminates when a favorable interpretation is obtained or when the friends become unavailable.

A designation the subject assigns to themselves and attributes to the other party. The Institute notes it is self-reported: no one issues a friend zone. The subject applied, was not selected, and filed the result under geography.

The unannounced, complete cessation of contact by one party. The Institute's interest is not in the ghost but in the subject's response: the "you good?", the follow-up, the third message into a silence that has already answered the question.

A terminal communication issued by a subject after their overture has been declined or ignored. The message asserts that the subject has no worries. The subject has worries. IAD Field Report No. 12 describes this as "the closing statement of the undisclosed application." The phrase is notable for its function: it allows the subject to exit gracefully while maintaining deniability about the overture itself.

A message delivered, opened, and left unanswered. The Institute's documented incident is not the silence itself but the subject's response to it: the re-reading of the thread, the typing-indicator surveillance, the follow-up that makes it worse.

The condition in which a draft message exists but has not been sent. Distinguished from normal message composition by duration (exceeding 24 hours), revision count (exceeding three), and the subject's awareness that the message is disproportionate to the context. The subject is in Pre-Paragraph State. The subject knows they are in Pre-Paragraph State. The Institute recommends closing the drafts folder.

The use of work-adjacent, logistical, or intellectually plausible framing to engineer contact with a person of romantic interest. The pretext is real. The actual purpose is not disclosed. Common forms include: sharing an article "they might find useful," asking a professional question the subject already knows the answer to, and requesting feedback on a project that does not require feedback.

The identification of implied romantic meaning in a communication that contains no such meaning. The subtext is not present in the message. It is present in the subject's reading of the message. Attribution typically increases in frequency as the subject's investment increases, creating a feedback loop in which greater investment produces more attributions, which justify greater investment.

The condition in which a subject has been integrated into another person's logistical infrastructure (airport transportation, technical support, errand completion, furniture assembly) without a corresponding relationship status. The subject has made themselves useful. This is not the same as making themselves wanted. A primary indicator of Tier III conduct.

See: False Positive. The Institute prefers this term in formal documentation because it is descriptive without being evaluative. The signal existed. The classification of the signal was the error.

A person engaged in the systematic subordination of their own standards in pursuit of attention from someone not reciprocating. The Institute's full classification is filed separately.

The process by which a subject reinterprets existing evidence to maintain a desired conclusion in the face of contradicting information. Common forms include: "She said maybe because she was nervous"; "She didn't respond because she's been busy"; "The fact that she hasn't texted means she's thinking about what to say." The recalibration preserves the conclusion. The conclusion is not supported by the evidence.

A relationship that has not been filed, by mutual non-decision. One party is keeping their options open. The other party is keeping a Notes-app timeline.

The partial, deniable introduction of a person to an audience: a wrist in a photo, an unnamed "someone," a story with one intended viewer. Calibrated for plausible deniability in both directions.

An indefinite probationary period preceding a relationship that may never be defined. Distinguished from dating by the absence of advancement criteria: there is no review, no promotion, and no posted end date.

The sudden, involuntary collapse of attraction triggered by a small, often unrelated detail: how he chased the ball, the way she said a word. Late-arriving, non-negotiable, and usually a signal the subject had been overriding earlier ones.

A multi-sentence message composed in response to minimal prior contact. Typically drafted and revised across multiple sessions lasting between one and four days. The Paragraph is distinguished from normal communication by its length relative to the context, its attempt to reframe the relationship, and its implicit expectation of a response that will change things. Sending The Paragraph constitutes an escalation event. The Institute has reviewed The Paragraph. It will not accomplish what the subject believes it will accomplish.

A contact initiated under a plausible pretext (sharing a meme, asking a logistical question, offering unsolicited information) when the actual purpose is to restart a communication thread that has gone dormant. Distinguished from legitimate contact by the thinness of the pretext and the subject's awareness that the pretext is thin. The pretext does not need to be convincing. It needs to be deniable.

The assignment of long-term domestic or relational significance to a logistically neutral interaction. The subject performs a service (repairs a device, provides a meal, assists with a move) and internally registers this as evidence of a shared domestic future. The other person received a service. The subject experienced a relationship milestone. These are not the same event.

Unrequested labor, material provision, or logistical service performed in expectation of romantic credit. The credit is not disclosed. The expectation is not acknowledged. The work is real. The return is assumed. The Institute does not classify this as generosity. It classifies it as a transaction the other party did not agree to enter.