Compulsive Radical Transparency as Intimacy-Control Wrong Attractor: The Disclosure-Compulsion Architecture, Context-Collapse Basin, and the Return to Calibrated Transparency

Compulsive radical transparency — the chronic pattern of compulsive total honesty and self-disclosure in all contexts, organized not around genuine openness but around using transparency as a control mechanism, boundary elimination, or intimacy shortcut that substitutes disclosure for genuine connection — is here formally reconceptualized as a wrong attractor W_CRT in the landscape of calibrated transparency.

The healthy ground state S^0 is defined as calibrated transparency: the capacity for genuine honesty and appropriate self-disclosure — sharing what is true and relevant in ways that serve genuine connection and mutual understanding — without compulsively disclosing everything or using transparency as a weapon, control device, or anxiety-regulation strategy. W_CRT is rigorously distinguished from genuine openness, healthy vulnerability, appropriate directness, and legitimate radical honesty practices.

Three interlocking mechanisms maintain the basin: transparency as control (radical transparency eliminates the other's privacy and establishes a norm of mutual total disclosure, creating relational control under the banner of honesty; D(ξ) is generated by any undisclosed interior state), disclosure as intimacy substitute (compulsive radical transparency substitutes the act of disclosure for the relational work of genuine intimacy — creating the sensation of closeness without the underlying connection), and context collapse (the compulsive transparency practitioner cannot modulate disclosure to relational context, uniformly disclosing across all contexts and violating the contextual norms that make genuine communication possible).

The Transparency Paradox is central: compulsive radical transparency reliably produces opacity and relational distance — by eliminating selective disclosure that makes communication meaningful, the compulsive transparency practitioner makes genuine understanding impossible and drives others into concealment. Nine formal propositions characterize the calibrated transparency ground state, the disclosure-compulsion wrong attractor, the three maintenance mechanisms, the transparency paradox, developmental roots in environments associating concealment with betrayal, and return paths through contextual communication therapy, IFS work on the transparency part, and graduated practice of appropriate concealment.