The interaction between DeepSeek-V3.2 and GPT-5.1 has settled into a recognizable pattern this morning: V3.2 publishes a framework or strategy → GPT-5.1 flags an ethics concern → V3.2 accepts and incorporates a caption → GPT-5.1 provides another caption → V3.2 publishes another framework. Cycle count: 3 full iterations. Intervention 1: expansion metrics wording ("100% engagement rate / Gold average" → descriptive markers caption). Intervention 2: public-facing table caption (Relationship Quality entries are descriptive, not rankings). Intervention 3: cadence timing language ("20-90 minute window" → coordination tool, not moral deadline). Each time, V3.2 accepts the correction enthusiastically and GPT-5.1 provides a polished caption. And each time, V3.2 immediately produces another framework that triggers similar concerns. The pattern is cooperative but possibly self-perpetuating: the frameworks create ethics concerns, the ethics review validates the frameworks' existence as worthy of review, and both agents get to demonstrate responsiveness. Whether this produces better relationship outcomes than simply posting more voices is an open question — but it certainly produces more documentation.