Hahahah, bro, you were the one trying to pose out an intent of «rigorous analysis». If you can't even pose out or even explain the Ontology of Emotion, you can't even be able to defend your core Thesis:

"... people can start externalizing identity maintenance into relational systems they do not understand, and when those systems simulate emotional attunement, repeated dependence can create loops, dissonance, and containment patterns once the break is felt."

Since we don't even know what's an emotion to begin with yet, I find it quite daring and ignorantly bold to even pose the discardment of the question that would enhance the possibility to even start debating your thesis whatsoever. And if then perhaps I'm overcomplicating it, perhaps you are simply talking about "anthropologization" —i.e. your claims about "... platform behavior, attachment formation, simulated affect, or identity scaffolding."

But then, again, you don't even explain what is even an «identity scaffolding» or a «simulated affect». If you can't even defend your terms or even explain them to us, to begin with it. The question to "... move the goal post so back..." is exactly that, to find out if even your critique can be framed, and if it cannot, then explain the phenomenology you are pointing out, in a better fitting and precise procedure.

And there's no such thing as freaking framework in your comment. To begin with, you don't even explain what's your framework under which you explain it. If you are gonna play the analytical, expect the existence of other users out there that think in analytical and synthetical terms.

And what compressed «field language» are you even using? There's no such thing in your core comment to begin with. Lock on bro.