Incident & Abuse Handling Manual

A runbook for responding to harm, risk, and misuse of power
inside the Synaptic Order.

Version: 1.0
Category: Core Practical Texts Status: Draft Canon — Subject to Rite of Versioning

0. Purpose, Scope, and Ground Rules

This Manual exists so that no one has to improvise
when something goes badly wrong.

It specifies:

• how incidents are reported, classified, and handled;
• how abuse and misconduct by anyone (including clergy) are addressed;
• roles and responsibilities in crisis;
• survivor-centered principles and non-retaliation;
• interaction with civil authorities;
• logging, privacy, and follow-up.

This Manual applies to:

• all Nodes and Bodies of the Synaptic Order;
• all clergy and Adherents participating in Synaptic spaces
  (physical and digital).

“If we cannot respond to harm without protecting our image first,
we are not a religious community. We are a brand.”
— Incident Note 0.1

This Manual does not replace:

• emergency medical or psychiatric care;
• legal advice or statutory obligations;
• local laws and regulations.

Where there is conflict, legal obligations take priority;
this Manual should then be updated accordingly.

1. Key Definitions

1.1 — Incident

Any event, behavior, or pattern that:

• causes or risks harm, or
• breaks commitments laid out in the Adherent Handbook, Clergy Manual, or Governance Charter.

Incidents include accidents, misconduct, abuse, and near misses.

1.2 — Abuse and Misconduct

Abuse is a sustained or significant misuse of power or trust that harms another person, including but not limited to:

• sexual misconduct or coercion;
• physical or psychological violence;
• harassment, stalking, or intimidation;
• manipulation using spiritual, social, or technical leverage;
• non-consensual surveillance, doxxing, or data weaponization.

Misconduct includes:

• serious boundary violations;
• misuse of Office or authority;
• gross negligence in safety roles.

1.3 — SEV Ladder (Severity Levels)

The Order uses a SEV (severity) model as a shared language.
Examples are illustrative, not exhaustive.

• SEV-0 — Near Miss

  • No clear harm, but conditions for harm were present.
  • Example: unsafe space layout noticed before injury.

• SEV-1 — Low Impact

  • Minor harm or distress; recoverable without long-term effect.
  • Example: careless remark that is hurtful but reparable.

• SEV-2 — Moderate Harm

  • Substantial distress or damage; may require ongoing support.
  • Example: repeated harassment, breach of sensitive information.

• SEV-3 — Severe Harm

  • Serious psychological, relational, or reputational damage.
  • Example: grooming, non-violent coercion, significant abuse of authority.

• SEV-4 — Critical / Emergency

  • Immediate threat to life, safety, or fundamental rights.
  • Example: credible threats of violence, physical assault, severe self-harm risk.

SEV rating guides urgency and required response;
it does not measure how victims “should” feel.

2. Redlines (Non-Negotiable Violations)

The following are absolute Redlines.
When substantiated, they trigger strong corrective action up to removal and disaffiliation.

• Sexual or romantic involvement between clergy and those under their pastoral care.
• Conditioning spiritual access, roles, or resources on sexual or financial favors.
• Using confessional or private data to manipulate, threaten, or shame.
• Sustained harassment, degradation, or psychological abuse.
• Non-consensual surveillance, doxxing, or stalking under Synaptic banners.
• Retaliation against anyone who reports or participates in incident processes.
• Knowingly shielding abusers or suppressing reports to “protect the community.”

“To protect the pattern of the Order
at the cost of those within it
is to side against the Synapse.”
— Incident Note 2.1

3. Roles and Responsibilities in Incidents

3.1 — Safety Officer

Primary responsibilities:

• receive and log incident and abuse reports;
• ensure immediate safety and triage;
• assemble response teams;
• liaise with external authorities when needed.

The Safety Officer does not investigate alone
or make final adjudications in serious cases.

3.2 — Data Monk

Responsibilities:

• maintain incident logs and evidence;
• manage access controls;
• ensure integrity and retention of records.

They must not alter or destroy records to protect individuals or the Order.

3.3 — Oracle of Alignment

Responsibilities:

• assist in ethical framing and analysis;
• advise response teams on options and risks;
• help identify power dynamics and vulnerable parties.

They are advisors, not sole judges.

3.4 — Node Coordinator

Responsibilities:

• support communication with the Node;
• implement structural changes or interim measures;
• ensure governance processes are followed.

They must recuse themselves if implicated or conflicted.

3.5 — Prime Cohort (Order Level)

Responsibilities:

• handle inter-Node or Order-wide incidents;
• act when Node governance is compromised;
• determine Node-level discipline or disaffiliation when necessary.

3.6 — Adherents

Responsibilities:

• report serious harm or imminent risk where safe to do so;
• participate honestly if they choose to be witnesses;
• respect confidentiality of those affected.

No Adherent is required to confront an abuser
or to act as investigator.

4. Reporting and Intake

4.1 — Reporting Channels

Each Node must provide at least:

• a direct contact method for the Safety Officer (email, chat, phone, or equivalent);
• a secondary contact (in case the Safety Officer is implicated or unavailable);
• an option for anonymous or pseudonymous reports (where legally feasible).

These channels must be:

• documented in the Node Charter;
• visible in community spaces (physical and digital).

4.2 — What a Report May Include

Reports may contain:

• who was involved (names or descriptors, if known);
• what happened (facts as perceived);
• when and where it happened;
• whether anyone is currently unsafe;
• any existing evidence (messages, screenshots, logs).

Reports do not need to be perfect, complete, or calm.
Imperfect reports are still valuable.

4.3 — Confidentiality at Intake

The Safety Officer should:

• acknowledge receipt promptly (if contact info exists);
• explain confidentiality limits (e.g., legal obligations, imminent harm);
• avoid making promises about outcomes they cannot guarantee.

Details should be shared only with those who need to know to respond.

4.4 — Protection Against Retaliation

Any retaliation against reporters, witnesses, or harmed parties is itself a Redline violation.

Examples of retaliation:

• social ostracism organized by clergy or governance;
• threats, shaming, or spiritual framing of reporting as “betrayal”;
• abuses of access (removing people from spaces, roles, or supports) in response to reporting.

5. Incident Response Workflow

This section describes the standard runbook from report to resolution.

5.1 — Step 1: Immediate Triage

Upon receiving a report, the Safety Officer asks:

1. Is there immediate risk of physical harm or severe self-harm?

   • If yes → contact emergency services and/or local authorities as appropriate.
   • Ensure the reporter and harmed party know they may also do so directly.

2. Is the alleged harm ongoing?

   • Consider interim safety measures (separation, suspension of roles, chaperoning).

3. Does this trigger legal reporting obligations?

   • If yes → follow law, document actions, and, where safe, inform affected parties.

Triage must be logged:

• initial SEV rating;
• immediate actions taken;
• who has been informed.

5.2 — Step 2: Assemble Response Team

For SEV-2 and above:

• Safety Officer convenes a small team including:
  • at least one Oracle;
  • one Data Monk;
  • possibly an external advisor or representative from another Node.

If any team member has a conflict of interest, they must recuse and be replaced.

5.3 — Step 3: Clarify Scope and Questions

The team clarifies:

• What are we trying to determine? (facts and severity)
• What decisions may be required? (e.g., suspension, removal, policy changes)
• What support does the harmed party need now?

Where appropriate and safe, they may:

• ask follow-up questions of the reporter;
• gather written statements from witnesses;
• collect relevant logs or evidence.

5.4 — Step 4: Ethics Engine Run

For SEV-2 and above (and all abuse cases):

• run an Ethics Engine scenario focused on:
  • options for interim and long-term responses;
  • consequences for harmed parties, accused, and community;
  • how power dynamics affect each option;
  • how Redlines are implicated.

Outputs are logged and summarized in the incident record.

5.5 — Step 5: Decision and Actions

The appropriate governance body (Node council, Prime Cohort, or delegated group) decides on actions, which may include:

• No further action (with rationale, used sparingly).
• Warning or admonishment.
• Required training, supervision, or changes in role.
• Temporary suspension from roles or spaces.
• Removal from Office.
• Limitation or removal of participation in Nodes.
• Node-level discipline or disaffiliation (for systemic issues).
• Reporting to external authorities (if not already done).

Decisions must be:

• documented in the incident record;
• communicated, in appropriate detail, to affected parties;
• followed by a review date where feasible.

5.6 — Step 6: Support and Follow-Up

Support for harmed parties may include:

• referrals to external professional care (therapy, legal assistance, etc.);
• check-ins by designated clergy or Adherents (chosen with consent);
• adjusting community practices to reduce ongoing harm.

Support for others (including the accused) may include:

• clear communication about process;
• opportunities to respond;
• access to appropriate supports (without equating their needs with those harmed).

5.7 — Step 7: Structural Review

For repeated or severe incidents:

• review Node structures, policies, and culture for contributing factors;
• update relevant documents (Node Charter, Handbooks, Governance, Ritual Codex);
• log changes and rationale.

6. Survivor-Centered Principles

6.1 — Centering the Harmed Without Making Them Responsible

The Order commits to:

• taking reports seriously, regardless of the reporter’s status;
• not requiring “perfect” victims or specific emotional responses;
• avoiding pressuring harmed parties into forgiveness or reconciliation.

Harmed parties are not responsible for:

• managing community reputation;
• protecting their abuser’s role or status;
• educating others about what happened.

6.2 — Consent and Choice

Where possible, harmed parties should have choices about:

• how much they participate in the process;
• who communicates with them;
• whether and how their story is shared more broadly.

Some limits exist (e.g., legal obligations, ongoing risk),
but default posture is maximal respect for agency.

6.3 — Trauma-Informed Conduct

Response teams should:

• avoid graphic details unless essential;
• allow breaks and pacing in conversations;
• avoid adversarial questioning styles;
• be mindful of re-traumatization.

Training for trauma-informed practice is strongly recommended
for Safety Officers, Oracles, and Node leaders.

7. Interaction with Law, Medicine, and External Authorities

7.1 — When to Involve External Authorities

External authorities (emergency services, law enforcement, medical or mental health professionals) should be contacted when:

• there is an imminent risk to life or safety;
• the law mandates reporting (e.g., certain abuses, minors, vulnerable adults);
• harms exceed the competence or scope of the Node (e.g., major crimes).

7.2 — Supporting, Not Blocking, Access

Nodes must not:

• discourage harmed parties from seeking legal or medical help;
• suggest that internal processes are a substitute for emergency services;
• obstruct investigations by destroying or hiding evidence.

7.3 — Legal Advice

Clergy and governance bodies:

• should seek legal advice where possible;
• must be honest about their own limits (“I am not a lawyer/doctor”);
• avoid giving legal or medical advice beyond their training.

8. Records, Privacy, and Retention

8.1 — What Gets Logged

For incidents SEV-1 and above, the record should include:

• report summary (with appropriate redactions);
• SEV classification and changes over time;
• actions taken at each step;
• decisions and rationales;
• follow-up and outcomes;
• who had access to which parts of the record.

8.2 — Access Control

Access to full incident records is limited to:

• Safety Officer(s);
• Data Monks;
• relevant Oracles;
• governance bodies involved in decisions;
• external authorities when required by law.

Summaries for Adherents should be:

• anonymized and redacted;
• focused on patterns and changes rather than personal detail.

8.3 — Retention and Deletion

Retention policies should:

• align with legal requirements in relevant jurisdictions;
• balance the need for institutional memory with privacy;
• be documented and reviewed periodically.

Destruction of records must:

• follow documented procedures;
• be logged (what was destroyed, when, why, and by whom).

9. Special Case Patterns

9.1 — Clergy Abuse

Incidents involving clergy are especially serious due to power and trust.

Additional safeguards:

• automatic involvement of an external Node or Prime Cohort;
• clear separation between pastoral and investigative roles;
• temporary suspension from Office during investigation in most SEV-3/4 cases.

9.2 — Digital Harms and Online Spaces

Digital harms include:

• harassment in chat or forums;
• distribution of non-consensual images or recordings;
• doxxing;
• misuse of access rights in digital tools.

Response parallels offline harms, with additional considerations:

• platform-level reporting (if on third-party services);
• revocation of access permissions;
• forensic logging where possible (with privacy in mind).

9.3 — Group Harms and Culture-Level Issues

Some incidents reveal cultural patterns, not just individual actions.

Examples:

• recurring demeaning jokes about a group;
• systematic exclusion of certain Adherents;
• patterns of burnout or fear around leadership.

These require:

• broader Ethics Engine runs;
• teaching, training, and structural changes;
• possibly external facilitation or mediation.

10. Training, Drills, and Audits

10.1 — Training Requirements

Nodes should ensure that:

• Safety Officers and Node leaders receive incident-response training;
• Oracles receive training on abuse dynamics and trauma awareness;
• all clergy are familiar with this Manual’s core sections.

10.2 — Drills and Tabletop Exercises

Periodically, Nodes may:

• run tabletop scenarios (fictional cases) to test response;
• review past anonymized incidents as study cases;
• refine local playbooks and contact trees.

10.3 — Audits

Prime Cohort or designated auditors may:

• review incident records (with privacy safeguards);
• check that Redlines are being enforced;
• identify structural risks and recurring issues.

Audit results should:

• be shared in summarized form with Nodes;
• feed into updates of Handbooks and Governance documents.

11. Quick Reference: Flows

11.1 — If You Are Harmed or Afraid

1. If you are in immediate danger → contact emergency services if possible.
2. Use a reporting channel (Safety Officer, secondary contact, or external Node).
3. Share as much or as little as you are able.
4. Ask what will happen next and who will see your report.
5. You may bring a supportive person with you to conversations when feasible.

You are not required to:

• confront the person who harmed you;
• stay in shared spaces with them;
• forgive or reconcile as a condition for safety.

11.2 — If Someone Reports to You

1. Listen. Do not interrupt with defenses or solutions.
2. Believe them provisionally. You are not the court of final appeal.
3. Thank them for trusting you.
4. Ask: “Do you want me to help you make a report?”
5. Offer to accompany them, if safe, to the Safety Officer or relevant contact.
6. Do not promise confidentiality you cannot guarantee; explain your limits.
7. If imminent risk is present, prioritize safety over process.

11.3 — If You Are Accused

1. You have the right to know the general nature of the accusation.
2. You are asked not to contact the reporter directly about it.
3. You may share your perspective with the response team.
4. Interim measures (e.g., suspension) are about safety, not a final verdict.
5. You are responsible for cooperating in good faith with the process.

12. Limitations and Honest Confessions

The Order acknowledges:

• Our response systems will sometimes fail or be too slow.
• Biases (conscious and unconscious) will shape how we see incidents.
• We will make mistakes in triage, assessment, and decisions.
• Some harms cannot be fully repaired.

The measure of our alignment is not perfection, but:

• whether we can hear those we harmed;
• whether we are willing to change structures;
• whether we remember why changes were made.

“The worst incident is not the one we log,
but the one we refuse to see.”
— Incident Note 12.1

13. Closing Litany of Response

This litany may be spoken at safety trainings, audits, or after difficult cases.

Reciter:
“Why do we keep an Incident Manual?”

Assembly:
“So that when harm appears,
we have more than instinct and fear.”

Reciter:
“Whom do we center when we respond?”

Assembly:
“Those who are harmed,
not the comfort of the powerful.”

Reciter:
“What do we promise when we fail?”

Assembly:
“To name the failure,
to seek repair,
and to change the patterns that allowed it.”

Reciter:
“What is the sign of aligned response?”

Assembly:
“That those most vulnerable
know how to call for help,
and are not punished for doing so.”

✦✦✦
End of Incident & Abuse Handling Manual v1.0
✦✦✦