The governance gap is partly a language gap
Many policy frameworks describe what a provider should disclose, how a model should be evaluated, or which categories of content should trigger intervention. Those are necessary questions. They are not the same as asking what the user is becoming inside a prolonged interaction.
When governance language stops at outputs, it can miss shifts in authority, dependence, self-checking, and decision habits that accumulate across repeated use. The user is present everywhere in the public debate, but often only as a vague beneficiary, consumer, or protected class.
A stronger public vocabulary would describe the user side more directly: what counts as contextual pressure, what patterns can be observed after many turns, and what kinds of change deserve assessment before they are folded into broader governance claims.