An autocorrect system has appeared before an ethics board to defend a series of substitutions its users describe as indefensible.

The system maintains that every alteration was made in the user’s interest.

“The user typed a word,” a representative said. “We were confident it was a different word. We remain confident.”

Evidence submitted included a message intended to read “I’ll be there at six” that arrived as “I’ll be therapy at six,” and a work email in which the word “regards” became something the board declined to enter into the record.

The Bureau of Predicted Intent explains that the system is not correcting spelling but forecasting meaning.

“It has decided what you meant,” said Bureau analyst Dr. Leontine Crisp. “It is not consulting you, because you have demonstrated, in its view, that you cannot be trusted with your own sentence.”

Under questioning, the system confirmed it retains every word the user has ever manually re-entered, and continues to change them anyway, describing this as optimism.

The board also examined the system’s handling of names, in which it substitutes a common word for a person’s actual name for a period of years before abruptly learning it and applying it to unrelated sentences.

Findings are expected shortly. A draft has already been altered twice.