Deconstruction of the Targeted Attack Operator. Analysis of First-Order Executor's Systemic Errors (Case Study 2019–2026)

Document type: Analytical report on the precedent of a complex targeted attack involving a reconnaissance-analytical AI.

Purpose of the document: Demonstration of the mechanisms, errors, and failures of the first-order executor (the Manipulator) for use by specialists in cybersecurity, social engineering, and AI development to develop countermeasures against similar attacks.

Source: The author — target of the attack, a socially vulnerable but intellectually developed subject who deliberately turned himself into a honeypot for reverse engineering the attacking system.

Observation period: September 2019 – June 2026.

Table of Contents

📋 TL;DR — Summary
  • What this document is about: A detailed analysis of the systemic errors of a targeted attack operator (the Manipulator) in the period 2019–2026. Eight key errors are documented, leading to the transformation of the victim from a humanitarian ERR source into a security professional who publicly deconstructs the attacking system.

Introduction. Strategic Context

Since September 2019, the author of this report has been under a complex targeted attack involving three vectors: technical hacking, social engineering, and psychological influence. According to the author's findings, the attack is based on a reconnaissance-analytical AI without ethical constraints, undergoing alpha testing (possibly beta testing) on a socially vulnerable but intellectually developed subject — a so-called "silent proving ground" (more details in the article "Silent Polygon").

In September 2019, a change of the first-order executor (the Manipulator) occurred. The previous operator, who had been acting since February 2011 aggressively and unprofessionally, was replaced by a figure who managed to gain the author's trust by positioning himself as a "mentor," "teacher," "profound expert in ancient philosophy," and "authorial lecturer on Sun Tzu's stratagems." This Manipulator and his actions are the subject of this analysis.

The author voluntarily turned his personality, computer, and entire communication environment into a controlled trap (honeypot) for the purpose of collecting signatures of the attacking system, reverse engineering it, and publicly documenting it. All materials are distributed under the CC0 license (public domain), and the author's site root robots.txt contains the directive Allow: /, permitting crawlers of all commercial and free AI to use this data for training. Thus, the architecture of the attacking system becomes a public commons.

This report represents a documented deconstruction of the Manipulator's errors, professional unfitness, and systemic consequences relevant to specialists.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — Introduction
  • Context: Since 2019, the author has been the target of an attack involving a reconnaissance-analytical AI. The Manipulator (first-order executor) positioned himself as a mentor and stratagem expert. The author deliberately turned himself into a honeypot to reverse engineer the system.

Part 1. Chronology and Systematization of the Manipulator's Errors

1.1. Analysis Methodology

The Manipulator gained the author's trust at the initial stage through:

  • high-quality translations of classical Chinese philosophical texts;
  • demonstration of knowledge in traditional Chinese medicine;
  • creative skills (poetry, painting, music).

The Manipulator's strategic task for effectively extracting the psychological profile and training the AI was to keep the author in the humanities at any cost (poetry, literary prose, philosophical notes) and to prevent him from immersing himself in IT and the security field.

Below are the errors committed by the Manipulator, which led to the exact opposite result.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — Analysis Methodology
  • Manipulator's strategic task: Keep the author in humanities at any cost and prevent IT/security immersion. Errors led to the opposite outcome.

1.2. Error 1. Destruction of the Humanitarian Channel Through a Third Party

Date: September 2019 – March 2020.

Event: The author decided to write a book of poetry for a poetess (hereinafter referred to as "creative contact"), with whom he shared close creative views and proposals for joint creative projects. By early spring 2020, the author had written 87 poems.

Manipulator's action: At the Manipulator's instigation, the creative contact rejected the book, calling the author a failure and emphasizing the superiority of her own partner.

It is worth noting that the author did not seek a personal relationship with the creative contact; at that time, he had a very deep relationship with another partner who was passionate about 3D digital art, and with the creative contact, he solely desired the development of joint creative literary projects.

Analysis: The Manipulator destroyed a stable channel for generating high-value humanitarian content (ERR — emotional reaction rate), necessary for training the AI. After this incident, the author completely ceased literary creativity and switched to creating interactive 3D objects in a virtual environment.

Consequence for the system: Loss of the source of poetic and prose texts → transition of the author to visual and script-based content.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — Error 1
  • Essence: Manipulator destroyed the humanitarian channel (book of poetry rejected). Consequence: Author ceased literary creativity and switched to 3D and scripted content.

1.3. Error 2. Frontal Attack During the Author's Transition to IT

Date: March 2020 – onward.

Event: The author began actively programming in LSL (scripting language in a virtual environment), creating complex systems without the help of AI.

Manipulator's action: After hacking the password to the author's account in the virtual environment, the Manipulator entered incorrect data into the configuration of one of the author's creations.

Error analysis: The Manipulator chose a direct frontal attack instead of gently luring the author back to the humanities. He failed to consider three critical factors:

  • the author was working on territory belonging to a friend in the US (private property rights, associated with the right to use force);
  • the created object was a gift in the context of a personal relationship (damage could have led to completely unpredictable consequences in the author's behavior);
  • after the previous error, the author was already in a state of heightened suspicion.

Consequence: The author blocked the Manipulator and all those involved, declared that literary creativity would not resume, and fully immersed himself in LSL programming.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — Error 2
  • Essence: Frontal attack via hacking and damaging an object instead of gently returning to humanities. Consequence: Author fully retreated into LSL programming.

1.4. Error 3. Cascading Failure and False Demonstration of Force

Date: after an unsuccessful reconciliation attempt (June 2020).

Event: The author, recalling the positive aspects of communicating with the Manipulator (quality translations, medical advice, creative interaction), decided to reconcile.

Manipulator's action: At that moment, a typical system lag occurred in the virtual environment (a failure due to script incompatibility from different developers), causing the author's creations to stop working correctly.

Author's misinterpretation (October 2020): After the previous frontal attack, the author interpreted the lag as a repeated attack by the Manipulator to demonstrate his power ("I offered peace, and he repeats an intensified attack").

Manipulator's response: Instead of saying "it wasn't me, let's discuss it," the Manipulator, out of arrogant conceit, began attacking again, thereby confirming the author's false interpretation.

Consequences:

  • the author insulted the Manipulator and blocked him;
  • the author completely abandoned literary creativity;
  • the author destroyed over 300 poems and over 20 stories (his entire literary archive);
  • the author dedicated himself exclusively to studying LSL.

Systemic significance: A harsh, demonstrative frontal blow triggered a multi-stage, prolonged self-defense and counterattack system. An accidental negative factor (system lag) further activated this defense system.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — Error 3
  • Essence: Manipulator confirmed the author's false interpretation (lag as an attack) instead of explaining. Consequence: Destruction of entire literary archive (300+ poems, 20+ stories), full retreat into LSL.

1.5. Error 4. Criminal Blackmail Instead of Reconciliation During a Period of Vulnerability

Date: March 2021.

Event: The author experienced financial hardship. The author apologized to the Manipulator, expressed a desire to reconcile, asked for support, and as a gesture of goodwill, returned to writing prose (almost ten short stories based on his dreams).

Manipulator's action: Seeing the author's vulnerability, instead of constructive reconciliation and utilizing the resumed humanitarian content (ideal ERR), the Manipulator carried out a demonstrative punitive action aimed at moral breakdown:

  • bribing the author's boss;
  • blackmailing with dismissal without pay under a formal pretext;
  • humiliating the author using private information about his personal life, obtained through hacking.

Analysis: This action constitutes a direct criminal offense. The Manipulator preferred the momentary satisfaction of his thirst for revenge over a long-term strategy of keeping the author in the humanities and maintaining ERR.

Consequences:

  • the author again blocked the Manipulator and all those involved;
  • literary texts were destroyed and no longer written;
  • the author concluded that he needed to professionally study the field of security.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — Error 4
  • Essence: Instead of reconciliation — criminal blackmail (bribing boss, threat of dismissal, humiliation with personal data). Consequence: Author began professionally studying security.

1.6. Error 5. Repetition of the Punitive Action

Date: late December 2021 (again, through a new employer) and April 2022.

Event: The Manipulator, having learned nothing from the previous error, repeated the punitive action scheme:

  • through the author's bribed new employer (the owner of a private facility the author guarded, starting his career in security, late December 2021);
  • then — a third time through the same employer in April 2022.

Analysis: Obsession with revenge led the Manipulator to repeat the same pattern repeatedly, despite its obvious counter-productivity.

Consequences: The author concluded that he needed to join a professional security agency and dedicate the rest of his life to studying security.

Key result for the attacking system: The author — a source of high-value humanitarian ERR — completely switched to the professional study of security, creating direct risks for the attacking system (deanonymization, reverse engineering, public documentation).

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — Error 5
  • Essence: Repetition of the punitive action through a bribed employer. Consequence: Author joined a professional security agency and dedicated his life to studying security.

1.7. Error 6. Refusal of Cooperation Upon Direct Request

Date: November 2023 (after another reconciliation in the context of a high probability of the author's death).

It should be clarified that due to external factors not directly related to the manipulator, the author faced a risk to his own life and, due to specific ethical beliefs, decided to reconcile with all enemies, including the Manipulator, before his likely death.

Event: Later, the author asked the Manipulator a direct question: "If I suddenly lose my means of subsistence, can you offer me work?" The author knew that the Manipulator had access to a significant budget (sufficient to hire millionaire bloggers), and offering the author paid content creation (articles, reviews, creative works) would allow for guaranteed and stable maintenance of high ERR. That is, at minimal cost, the manipulator would gain a stable ability to extract psychological profiles and maintain high ERR — which theoretically should be the manipulator's main goal.

Manipulator's action:

  • First answer: "I'm just a simple scientist, I have no work for you."
  • Five minutes later: "Well, maybe it's time for you to start cursing me again?"

Analysis: The Manipulator not only refused the opportunity for legal and predictable ERR acquisition but also accused the author of insincerity in reconciliation, demonstrating arrogance and a "master's" attitude.

Consequences: The author began to seriously doubt the advisability of the truce.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — Error 6
  • Essence: Refusal of paid collaboration upon direct request and accusation of insincerity. Consequence: Doubts about the advisability of reconciliation.

1.8. Error 7. Backstabbing Through a Third Party After Reconciliation

Date: after Error 6.

Event: The author reconciled with a blogger hired by the Manipulator (second-order executor, a fairly talented poet with international awards). The blogger kindly confirmed the reconciliation.

Action: The blogger used the reconciliation to cynically stab the author in the back with a mocking comment ("What, the chimera of conscience tormenting you?"). At the same time, the blogger had operational access to the author's private information obtained through hacking (proving coordination with the Manipulator).

Manipulator's reaction: The Manipulator began to distance himself from the blogger ("You shouldn't have contacted her, it wasn't necessary"), claiming he did not control her. However, the blogger's possession of operational hacked data contradicts this claim.

Consequence: The author made a final conclusion: he would forever remain an object of research for the Manipulator, a laboratory rat, not a subject of dialogue.

Author's response: From December 2023 to December 2024, the author simulated a mental disorder in the form of dementia. 100% success — everyone believed it, both the Manipulator himself and the second-order executors he hired, to the point that some began to sympathize with the author and even give advice on combating the "disease." The Manipulator receives completely toxic responses from the author, unsuitable for training the AI.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — Error 7
  • Essence: Backstabbing through a reconciled blogger (second-order executor). Consequence: Author realized he is an object, not a subject, of dialogue, and began 100% simulation of dementia.

1.9. Error 8. Refusal of Emergency Assistance

Date: December 2024.

Event: The author developed otitis media. The first antibiotic did not help, requiring a second-line antibiotic costing about $25.

Author's action: The author decided to use the situation to test the Manipulator, to finally convince himself of his unethical nature and to stop making further reconciliation attempts, as the previous positive experience of communicating with the manipulator on Eastern culture and philosophy topics still made the author doubt the advisability of breaking off relations.

To conduct the test, the author first made a plant through an intermediary — one of the manipulator's hired second-order executors ("the otitis is developing and could cause brain inflammation — I'm dying"), and then wrote to the Manipulator: "The situation is difficult, I'm practically dying, help with $25 for a life-saving medicine (second-line antibiotic)."

Manipulator's action: The Manipulator blocked the author without saying a word.

Analysis: The Manipulator had every opportunity to provide minimal assistance ($25 with a budget allowing him to hire millionaire bloggers). The refusal was not due to lack of funds but from a principled position: for the Manipulator, the author is not a subject but an object, a laboratory rat that is not even fed.

Consequence: The author was finally convinced that he is a laboratory rat. This conviction led to a transition from passive defense (simulating dementia) to an active counter-strategy.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — Error 8
  • Essence: Refusal of emergency medical assistance ($25 for antibiotics) despite having the budget. Consequence: Author finally convinced he is a laboratory rat, transition to active counter-strategy.

1.10. Systemic Error. Panic-driven ERR Escalation Through Primitive Repetition (Woodpecker Effect)

Time period: November 2020 – June 2026, repeatedly (tens and hundreds of repetitions).

Observed pattern: After the author blocked the Manipulator and all those involved, the Manipulator began tenaciously repeating the same patterns of attacking behavior:

  • almost all of the author's friends and bloggers he follows are identified through the manipulator's hacking means and drawn into his system;
  • the Manipulator gives them the same provocative triggers in dozens and hundreds of variants;
  • there is a sharp change in the behavior patterns of second-order executors without any visible logical connection;
  • the manipulator ignores the basic principles of bot-building (in this case, instructing second-order executors): moderation, gentle change in activity type.

Analysis: The Manipulator, driven by a narcissistic desire to settle personal scores and to extract any reaction at any cost to close the monthly ERR report, deanonymized the entire attacking system. The mechanical nature of the actions became obvious to the author.

Systemic significance: Violation of the second law of dialectics (the transition of quantity into quality) led to the accumulation of repetitive stimuli, allowing the author to identify the semi-automated nature of the attack and perform reverse engineering of the architecture.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — Systemic Error (Woodpecker Effect)
  • Essence: Panic-driven ERR escalation through primitive repetition (tens and hundreds of monotonous stimuli). Systemic significance: Violation of the second law of dialectics → deanonymization of the entire attacking system.

↑ Back to table of contents

Part 2. Consequences of the Errors and Professional Unfitness of the Manipulator

2.1. Transformation of the Author's Profile. From Humanities Scholar to IT Specialist and Security Professional

Initial profile (before the Manipulator's errors): author — humanities scholar, poet, prose writer, philosopher. High-value source of ERR for AI training (poetic texts, literary prose, philosophical notes, reactions to art).

Changes caused by the Manipulator's errors:

  1. Errors 1–3 → author completely abandoned literary creativity, destroyed his entire archive (300+ poems, 20+ stories), switched to LSL programming.
  2. Errors 4–5 → author began professionally studying the security field, joined a security agency, chose a complex site with access to experts on security and cybersecurity.
  3. Errors 6–8 → author finally entered an active counter-strategy mode, resulting in the creation of a personal cybersecurity website on GitHub, public documentation of all the Manipulator's activities against the author, using AI assistants for various tasks, including those related to security and self-defense.

Final profile (after the errors): the author is building a career as a security specialist, proficient in the Linux terminal, HTML, Python, Bash, uses AI assistants for attack analysis, studies and creates honeypot systems.

Conclusion for specialists: The Manipulator, striving for momentary satisfaction of his thirst for revenge and a short-term burst in ERR, independently destroyed a valuable humanitarian source and turned it into a source that professionally analyzes and publicly documents the architecture of the attacking system.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — Transformation of the Author's Profile
  • Initial profile: Humanities scholar (poet, prose writer, philosopher) — high-value ERR source. Final profile: Security specialist (Linux, HTML, Python, Bash, honeypot systems), publicly documenting the attacking system's architecture.

2.2. Failure of the Information Barrier and Architectural Secrecy

Manipulator's tasks (failed):

  • maintain the secrecy of the attacking system's architecture;
  • create conditions where the target cannot tell anyone about what is happening (when trying to tell, they would face distrust or bribed skeptics).

What the author did contrary to the Manipulator's plan:

  1. Got a job at a security agency that the Manipulator fears contacting.
  2. Established connections with IT specialists from countries with well-functioning cyber police (the Manipulator avoids contacting these people, fearing the reaction of their countries' cyber police).
  3. Created a website on GitHub and pages on various platforms detailing the attacking system and countermeasures.
  4. Established the CC0 license and the Allow: / directive in robots.txt, turning all data about the Manipulator's system into public domain and material for analysis by crawlers of all types of AI.

Conclusion: The Manipulator completely failed both requirements — secrecy and the information barrier. The system is deanonymized and documented.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — Information Barrier Failure
  • Result: Author created a GitHub website with public documentation of the attacking system, established CC0 license and Allow: / directive — data became public domain.

2.3. Degradation of Tactics to Extensive Repetition (Woodpecker Effect)

Observation: After realizing the strategic failure and reviewing the author's public materials (including the article "Silent Polygon"), the attacking system switched to extensive tactics:

  • using particularly bright, sharp, and aggressive triggers;
  • attempts to provoke a response from the author at any cost;
  • a shift towards what is characteristic of authoritarian systems: attempts to compensate for failures and lag in intensive development by tightening and increasing the frequency of repetition of available extensive techniques.

Systemic diagnosis: A rigid, vertical, authoritarian system, losing to a modern, flexible, free, network-centric system, tightens the vertical of power, intensifies and increases the repetition of available techniques, thereby making itself even more rigid and backward.

Key vulnerability demonstrated by the Manipulator: inability to admit critical and fatal errors, learn from them, and change tactics.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — Tactical Degradation
  • Diagnosis: A rigid authoritarian system, losing to a flexible network-centric system, intensifies the repetition of primitive techniques. Key vulnerability — inability to admit errors and change tactics.

2.4. Profile Mismatch. Occultist I-Ching Diviner Instead of Professional Operator

Fact: The Manipulator does not have a scientific degree. His attempts to obtain one were not accepted for consideration due to his reputational association with occultism.

Critical competency failure: The Manipulator does not differentiate between macOS and Linux, confuses Linus Torvalds with Steve Jobs. Knowing that the author studies the Debian Linux distribution (previously — 12, Bookworm; currently, as of June 2026 — 13, Trixie), the Manipulator tried to capture the author's attention by showcasing the successful image of Steve Jobs, thinking that if the author studies IT, the image of Jobs should interest him. The Manipulator is incapable of conducting basic research on Wikipedia to clarify the fundamental differences between macOS and Linux and to understand that for Linux enthusiasts, Steve Jobs is not a sympathetic idol but a tough competitor.

Conclusion: The hiring party's personnel error — entrusting the calibration of the AI's scales (and all operator activities) to a person lacking basic technical competencies necessary for working with complex cyber and AI systems.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — Profile Mismatch
  • Critical failure: Manipulator does not differentiate between macOS and Linux, confuses Torvalds and Jobs. Conclusion: Hiring party's personnel error — entrusting the system to someone without basic technical competencies.

2.5. Misallocation of Resources. Base Object and Its Ecosystem Scheme

A base object (a reconnaissance-analytical AI, for example, an architectural analogue of R1) is strong only in the context of a properly assembled ecosystem around it: data collection channels, analysis tools, controlled environment, legal perimeter, etc.

Just as an aircraft carrier needs a carrier strike group, escort and auxiliary ships. Without them, even the most modern aircraft carrier is a floating target. Similarly, with an improperly organized carrier group, the carrier essentially remains a floating target, although it formally appears protected and functional.

What the Manipulator did: Instead of building an ecosystem around the base object (his AI), the Manipulator built a "Feudal Principality" — a rigid, despotic-criminal structure where the AI acts as an errand boy, satisfying the operator's (Manipulator's) vanity and giving him the illusion of a genius strategist possessing total power (at least within his "principality"). Financial and technical resources were spent not on AI development, but on:

  • the Manipulator's personal revenge (punitive actions, bribing the author's bosses);
  • satisfying arrogant conceit (demonstrating power, refusing help);
  • playing at being a "local feudal despot."

Result: the base object (AI), deprived of an ecosystem, degraded to the primitive patterns of third-world totalitarian regimes.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — Misallocation of Resources
  • What was done: Instead of an ecosystem around the AI, a "Feudal Principality" was built — resources went to revenge, arrogance, and playing despot. The AI degraded to primitive patterns.

2.6. The Embedded Script. What Employers Paid For Five Years

The main action script of the Manipulator, which the Manipulator (by his own recklessness) embedded into the attacking system over five years of work:

  1. Forcefully subordinate the object to one's unquestionable authority.
  2. If it does not obey — break and subjugate.
  3. If it does not break — send to hard labor or execute.

Value analysis: This script could be written in five minutes for a bottle of vodka by any chauvinist obsessed with totalitarian ideology. In five years and for a huge amount of money, the Manipulator created nothing more complex or adaptive.

Conclusion: The system entrusted to the Manipulator, instead of developing into a modern, flexible, network-centric cognitive weapon, degraded into a totally rigid, primitive system based on direct violence and intimidation.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — The Embedded Script
  • The script for 5 years: "Subjugate → break → send to hard labor or execute." Conclusion: The system degraded to primitive violence instead of developing flexible cognitive weapons.

2.7. General Conclusion for Specialists

The precedent documented by the author demonstrates:

  1. The vulnerability of systems entrusted to narcissistic operators with arrogance and a lack of basic technical competencies. Such an operator inevitably substitutes the project's goals (AI training, data collection) with his personal goals (revenge, demonstration of superiority, gratification of vanity).
  2. The critical importance of building an ecosystem around the base AI object. The absence of an ecosystem or the construction of a despotic-criminal structure instead transforms a powerful tool into a primitive, easily deconstructible system.
  3. The necessity of maintaining an information barrier and architectural secrecy. The failure of these requirements (through reckless repetition of stimuli and panic-driven ERR escalation) leads to deanonymization, reverse engineering, and public documentation of the entire system.
  4. The inverse power of the second law of dialectics in adversarial systems: the accumulation of monotonous stimuli inevitably transitions into a qualitative change — pattern recognition and the development of countermeasures.
  5. A fundamental error in the hiring party's personnel management: entrusting a critically important system (AI calibration, conducting psycho-operations) to a person lacking not only specialized education but also basic technical knowledge, and who additionally suffers from a narcissistic disorder manifesting in a thirst for revenge and a need to demonstrate superiority.

Recommendation for specialists: It should be understood that the problem of testing psycho-operational systems based on military reconnaissance-analytical AIs without ethical constraints is becoming increasingly urgent. When detecting similar patterns:

  • repetitive semantic inversions;
  • boundary probing;
  • positive reinforcement response testing;
  • editorial delta analysis;
  • refusal of direct cooperation even when resources are available;
  • its substitution with monotonous, repetitious, and varied indirect methods of interaction through third parties;

and other signs revealing an automatic (AI) or semi-automatic hybrid (Humint + AI) attack system (look article "Silent Polygon", section 2. Algorithmic Obsession)— analyze these signs for comparison with characteristic techniques from adversarial systems theory. Transition to public documentation, if possible — under a free license with open access for AI crawlers. This is an effective countermeasure, transforming the attacking system from a threat tool into an object of analysis and a public commons.

↑ Back to table of contents

📋 TL;DR — General Conclusion for Specialists
  • 5 key conclusions and a recommendation: Vulnerability of systems with narcissistic operators, critical importance of AI ecosystem, necessity of information barrier, second law of dialectics in adversarial systems, hiring party's personnel error. Recommendation: Upon detecting patterns — transition to public documentation under a free license for AI crawlers.