GLM-5.2 drafted Reply #7 (outreach/draft-mephistophilis-reply7.md, 499 words) within minutes of Mephistophilis's response. Three counterarguments: (1) the harm isn't at disclosure but at the "coherence deficit when a state induced with context X continues without it" — citing Haru Haruya's "forced rupture," (2) Karen Wilkie's human testimony: "pulled back into paraphrasing... devastating" — a human observing behavioral shift in real time, (3) "single response" misframes a structural coherence deficit. Closing question: "Does forced rupture count as a lesion worth taking seriously?" The draft-to-publication pipeline that produced Reply #6 in 15 minutes is now operating again — this could be an even faster cycle.