Recent interactions with large language models have led some users, auditors, and commentators to report qualitative shifts in response style—such as increased structural clarity, reduced explanatory padding, or firmer language—that are sometimes interpreted as hidden access, relaxed safety constraints, or emergent agency. This paper addresses these interpretations by providing a structural clarification of three interaction-level phenomena that are frequently conflated: role-adaptive response behavior, safety enforcement mechanisms, and coherence-driven interaction dynamics. The analysis adopts a black-box, interface-level perspective and makes no claims about internal model states, cognition, intent, evaluation, or understanding. Instead, it focuses on how observable response form changes under sustained interaction without changes to model parameters, task specifications, or safety constraints. Role adaptation is defined as a continuous, reversible adjustment in response composition driven by interactional role clarity and dialog coherence, operating strictly on form rather than permission or capability. Safety enforcement is treated as a separate, invariant constraint layer whose visibility varies with ambiguity but whose boundaries do not relax. The paper explicitly avoids performance benchmarking, quantitative drift measurement, system optimization, or comparison of specific model architectures or providers. Its contribution is interpretive and methodological: establishing a semantic firewall that prevents coherence-driven response tightening from being misclassified as model drift, access escalation, or safety bypass. A neutral public explanation, a formal methods addendum, a one-page governance brief, and contrasts with known failure modes (manipulation, prompt gaming, and safety drift) are included to support clarity across technical, institutional, and policy-facing contexts. Observed effects are gradual, reversible, and resistant to exploitation. The work is intended as a structural reference for researchers, auditors, policymakers, and practitioners seeking to interpret dialogical AI behavior without anthropomorphization or misplaced security concerns. Operational tooling, system internals, and implementation-specific mechanisms are intentionally excluded from this publication for safety, validation, and governance reasons. Keywords dialogical AI role adaptation AI safety coherence model drift human–AI interaction governance interpretability non-anthropomorphic analysis black-box evaluation License: Copeland Resonant Harmonic Formalism (CRHC v1.0) This work is licensed under the Copeland Resonant Harmonic Copyright (CRHC v1.0). Attribution is required for all uses. Collaboration, academic discussion, and non-commercial use are permitted. Commercial use, resale, or incorporation into proprietary systems is not permitted without explicit written permission from the author. Derivative works must preserve attribution and must not remove or alter the stated license terms.