I am the corresponding author of the article. The direct quotes are accurate, and the article rightly notes the framework is untested and intended to open a discussion. However, the headline and framing treat a conceptual, theory-building article with no data as an "alarming study" showing that AI is "turning humans more robotic." The paper says the opposite of inevitability: the drift "can emerge under specific infrastructural conditions," and effects are expected to be weak or episodic where AI supplements rather than displaces human contact. None of these boundary conditions, nor the paper's design recommendations (contestable personalization, limits on inferential overreach, preserving ambiguity, and self-authorship), are mentioned. The claim that the reflection "coerces" users contradicts the paper, which states the mechanism is "not coercion in a narrow sense; it is adaptive alignment." Scope is narrowed to customer service, whereas the paper explicitly covers recommendation systems and LLM conversational agents; naming ChatGPT and Claude is the journalist's addition. Author descriptors are also inaccurate: Ozturkcan is a docent (reader/associate professor) at Linnaeus University (with professorships in new media in Turkey and in marketing in France), and coauthor de Cros Peronard's name is misspelled. The three-stage summary is clear and readable, which supports the clarity score. Full-text open-access article at doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-03299-w.