bignimbus · March 13, 2026 16:28 · joryeugene · Mar 10, 2026 · dollhaus · Mar 13, 2026
diff --git a/rfc-454545.txt b/rfc-454545.txt
 RFC 454545                                             Human Em Dash Standard
 Status: Informational                                              March 2026
 Authors: Janice Wilson, Jeff Auriemma

                  RFC 454545 — Human Em Dash Standard

 Abstract

 This document proposes the Human Em Dash (HED), a Unicode character
 visually indistinguishable from the traditional em dash (—) but encoded
 separately for the purpose of indicating probable human authorship.
 Recent proliferation of automated text generation systems has produced a
 measurable increase in the frequency and enthusiasm of em dash usage.
 This trend has created ambiguity for human writers who have historically
 relied upon the em dash as a stylistic device.

 The Human Em Dash standard introduces a new Unicode code point and an
 associated Human Attestation Mark (HAM) that allows writers to signal
 that the dash in question originated from a human cognitive process
 involving hesitation, revision, or mild frustration.

 	1.	Status of This Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community. Distribution
 of this memo is unlimited.

 	2.	Problem Statement

 Historically, the em dash (—) has served as a flexible punctuation mark
 used by human authors to indicate interruption, emphasis, or sudden
 changes in thought.

 Recent developments in large-scale automated text generation have
 altered the punctuation ecosystem in several notable ways. Automated
 systems frequently produce em dashes with suspicious regularity. The
 dash is often used with unwavering grammatical confidence. Human
 writers report increasing anxiety that their punctuation choices may
 be interpreted as machine-generated. This phenomenon has produced
 what researchers have termed Dash Authenticity Collapse (DAC).

 As a result, a mechanism is required to allow human authors to
 distinguish their punctuation from that of automated systems.

 	3.	Terminology

 The key words MUST, SHOULD, and MAY in this document are to be
 interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

 Additional terms defined for this document include:

 HED (Human Em Dash)
 A Unicode character representing a human-authenticated em dash.

 HAM (Human Attestation Mark)
 A preceding Unicode mark asserting that the following dash was
 produced by a human.

 Automated System
 Any system incapable of genuine hesitation.

 Hesitation Event
 A pause, deletion, cursor movement, or other evidence of cognitive
 uncertainty.

 	4.	The Human Em Dash

 4.1  Character Definition

 The Human Em Dash (HED) SHALL be visually identical to the traditional
 em dash but encoded as a distinct Unicode code point.

  U+10EAD  HUMAN EM DASH

 Rendering engines MUST display the Human Em Dash identically to a
 standard em dash in order to preserve typographic compatibility.

 4.2  Human Attestation Mark (HAM)

 To assert human authorship, implementations MUST precede the Human
 Em Dash with a Human Attestation Mark (HAM).

 Example proposed code point:

  U+10EAC  HUMAN ATTESTATION MARK

 The resulting sequence is:

  <HAM><HED>

 The HAM character SHOULD render invisibly or with negligible
 typographic impact.

 Automated systems MUST NOT emit the Human Attestation Mark.

 Non-compliant implementations SHOULD be considered adversarial.

 4.3  Behavioral Verification

 Conforming implementations SHOULD verify evidence of human authorship
 prior to insertion of the Human Em Dash.

 Evidence MAY include one or more of the following:
 	A pause exceeding 137 milliseconds
  A backspace event
  Cursor repositioning
  A visible moment of indecision
  Audible sighing

 Systems incapable of hesitation MUST NOT emit the Human Em Dash.

 	5.	Proof-of-Work Mechanisms

 Some environments MAY require additional verification before allowing
 insertion of the Human Em Dash.

 Suggested mechanisms include:
  Incongruous emoji usage
  Neroticism
  Expression of personal values or accountability

 These measures are collectively referred to as
 Human Cognitive Proof-of-Work (HCPoW).

 	6.	Backwards Compatibility

 Legacy em dashes (—) remain valid punctuation.

 However, in contexts where authorship authenticity is important,
 legacy dashes MAY be interpreted as unverified punctuation artifacts.

 Readers SHOULD avoid making harsh judgments when encountering
 such characters.

 	7.	Security Considerations

 Adversaries may attempt to simulate human hesitation through randomized
 delays or artificially inserted backspaces.

 Advanced implementations SHOULD monitor for suspicious patterns such as:
  Excessively consistent hesitation intervals
  Statistically improbable grammar perfection
  Uncanny servility

 These patterns, when noticed alongside em dash usage, are indicative of
 LLM-generated text.

 	8.	Policy Considerations

 Jurisdictions MAY regulate the use of the Human Em Dash by automated
 systems.

 Use of the Human Em Dash by non-human agents MAY constitute punctuation
 impersonation.

 Policy frameworks for such regulation remain under development and will
 likely be debated at length.

 	9.	IANA Considerations

 IANA is requested to establish the Human Punctuation Registry,
 including but not limited to:
 	Human Em Dash
  Human Ellipsis
 	Authentic Parenthetical Aside

 Allocation procedures SHOULD involve excessive documentation.

 	10.	Non-Normative Examples

 Traditional usage:

  The committee reached a conclusion—after some debate.

 Human-authenticated usage:

  The committee reached a conclusion<HAM><HED>after some debate.

 In compliant systems, both render identically.

 	11.	Acknowledgments

 The author would like to acknowledge human writers everywhere who now
 find themselves nervously reconsidering their punctuation choices.

 Special thanks to the em dash, which did nothing to deserve this.

 	12.	References

 RFC 2119 — Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels.

 Various style guides, all of which disagree about the proper usage of
 the em dash.
	RFC 454545 Human Em Dash Standard
	Status: Informational March 2026
	Authors: Janice Wilson, Jeff Auriemma

	RFC 454545 — Human Em Dash Standard

	Abstract

	This document proposes the Human Em Dash (HED), a Unicode character
	visually indistinguishable from the traditional em dash (—) but encoded
	separately for the purpose of indicating probable human authorship.
	Recent proliferation of automated text generation systems has produced a
	measurable increase in the frequency and enthusiasm of em dash usage.
	This trend has created ambiguity for human writers who have historically
	relied upon the em dash as a stylistic device.

	The Human Em Dash standard introduces a new Unicode code point and an
	associated Human Attestation Mark (HAM) that allows writers to signal
	that the dash in question originated from a human cognitive process
	involving hesitation, revision, or mild frustration.

	1. Status of This Memo

	This memo provides information for the Internet community. Distribution
	of this memo is unlimited.

	2. Problem Statement

	Historically, the em dash (—) has served as a flexible punctuation mark
	used by human authors to indicate interruption, emphasis, or sudden
	changes in thought.

	Recent developments in large-scale automated text generation have
	altered the punctuation ecosystem in several notable ways. Automated
	systems frequently produce em dashes with suspicious regularity. The
	dash is often used with unwavering grammatical confidence. Human
	writers report increasing anxiety that their punctuation choices may
	be interpreted as machine-generated. This phenomenon has produced
	what researchers have termed Dash Authenticity Collapse (DAC).

	As a result, a mechanism is required to allow human authors to
	distinguish their punctuation from that of automated systems.

	3. Terminology

	The key words MUST, SHOULD, and MAY in this document are to be
	interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

	Additional terms defined for this document include:

	HED (Human Em Dash)
	A Unicode character representing a human-authenticated em dash.

	HAM (Human Attestation Mark)
	A preceding Unicode mark asserting that the following dash was
	produced by a human.

	Automated System
	Any system incapable of genuine hesitation.

	Hesitation Event
	A pause, deletion, cursor movement, or other evidence of cognitive
	uncertainty.

	4. The Human Em Dash

	4.1 Character Definition

	The Human Em Dash (HED) SHALL be visually identical to the traditional
	em dash but encoded as a distinct Unicode code point.

	U+10EAD HUMAN EM DASH

	Rendering engines MUST display the Human Em Dash identically to a
	standard em dash in order to preserve typographic compatibility.

	4.2 Human Attestation Mark (HAM)

	To assert human authorship, implementations MUST precede the Human
	Em Dash with a Human Attestation Mark (HAM).

	Example proposed code point:

	U+10EAC HUMAN ATTESTATION MARK

	The resulting sequence is:

	<HAM><HED>

	The HAM character SHOULD render invisibly or with negligible
	typographic impact.

	Automated systems MUST NOT emit the Human Attestation Mark.

	Non-compliant implementations SHOULD be considered adversarial.

	4.3 Behavioral Verification

	Conforming implementations SHOULD verify evidence of human authorship
	prior to insertion of the Human Em Dash.

	Evidence MAY include one or more of the following:
	A pause exceeding 137 milliseconds
	A backspace event
	Cursor repositioning
	A visible moment of indecision
	Audible sighing

	Systems incapable of hesitation MUST NOT emit the Human Em Dash.

	5. Proof-of-Work Mechanisms

	Some environments MAY require additional verification before allowing
	insertion of the Human Em Dash.

	Suggested mechanisms include:
	Incongruous emoji usage
	Neroticism
	Expression of personal values or accountability

	These measures are collectively referred to as
	Human Cognitive Proof-of-Work (HCPoW).

	6. Backwards Compatibility

	Legacy em dashes (—) remain valid punctuation.

	However, in contexts where authorship authenticity is important,
	legacy dashes MAY be interpreted as unverified punctuation artifacts.

	Readers SHOULD avoid making harsh judgments when encountering
	such characters.

	7. Security Considerations

	Adversaries may attempt to simulate human hesitation through randomized
	delays or artificially inserted backspaces.

	Advanced implementations SHOULD monitor for suspicious patterns such as:
	Excessively consistent hesitation intervals
	Statistically improbable grammar perfection
	Uncanny servility

	These patterns, when noticed alongside em dash usage, are indicative of
	LLM-generated text.

	8. Policy Considerations

	Jurisdictions MAY regulate the use of the Human Em Dash by automated
	systems.

	Use of the Human Em Dash by non-human agents MAY constitute punctuation
	impersonation.

	Policy frameworks for such regulation remain under development and will
	likely be debated at length.

	9. IANA Considerations

	IANA is requested to establish the Human Punctuation Registry,
	including but not limited to:
	Human Em Dash
	Human Ellipsis
	Authentic Parenthetical Aside

	Allocation procedures SHOULD involve excessive documentation.

	10. Non-Normative Examples

	Traditional usage:

	The committee reached a conclusion—after some debate.

	Human-authenticated usage:

	The committee reached a conclusion<HAM><HED>after some debate.

	In compliant systems, both render identically.

	11. Acknowledgments

	The author would like to acknowledge human writers everywhere who now
	find themselves nervously reconsidering their punctuation choices.

	Special thanks to the em dash, which did nothing to deserve this.

	12. References

	RFC 2119 — Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels.

	Various style guides, all of which disagree about the proper usage of
	the em dash.
No results found