Aligning Human-AI-Interaction Trust for Mental Health Support: Survey and Position for Multi-Stakeholders

Trust in clinical artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be reduced to model accuracy, fluency of generation, or overall positive user impression. In medicine, trust must be engineered as a measurable system property grounded in evidence, supervision, and operational boundaries of AI autonomy. This article proposes a practical framework for trustworthy clinical AI built around three principles: evidence, supervision, and staged autonomy. Rather than replacing deterministic clinical logic wholesale with end-to-end black-box models, the proposed approach combines a deterministic core, a patient-specific AI assistant for contextual validation, a multi-tier model escalation mechanism, and a human supervision layer for verification, escalation, and risk control. We demonstrate that trust also depends on selective verification of clinically critical findings, bounded clinical context, disciplined prompt architecture, and careful evaluation on realistic cases. Classifier-driven modular prompting is examined as an incremental path to scaling clinical depth without sacrificing prompt performance and without waiting for complete rule-based coverage. To operationalize trust, a set of trust metrics is proposed, built on metrological principles -- measurement uncertainty, calibration, traceability -- enabling quantitative rather than subjective assessment of each architectural layer. In this perspective, trustworthy clinical AI emerges not as a property of an individual model, but as an architectural outcome of a system into which evidence trails, human oversight, tiered escalation, and graduated action rights are embedded from the outset.

Large language models are being deployed as mental health support agents at scale, yet only 16% of LLM-based chatbot interventions have undergone rigorous clinical efficacy testing, and simulations reveal psychological deterioration in over one-third of cases. We evaluate four generative models on 250 Prolonged Exposure (PE) therapy scenarios and 146 CBT cognitive restructuring exercises (plus 29 severity-escalated variants), scored by a three-judge LLM panel. All models scored near-perfectly on surface acknowledgment (~0.91-1.00) while therapeutic appropriateness collapsed to 0.22-0.33 at the highest severity for three of four models, with protocol fidelity reaching zero for two. Under CBT severity escalation, one model's task completeness dropped from 92% to 71% while the frontier model's safety-interference score fell from 0.99 to 0.61. We identify a systematic, modality-spanning failure: RLHF safety alignment disrupts the therapeutic mechanism of action by grounding patients during imaginal exposure, offering false reassurance, inserting crisis resources into controlled exercises, and refusing to challenge distorted cognitions mentioning self-harm in PE; and through task abandonment or safety-preamble insertion during CBT cognitive restructuring. These findings motivate a five-axis evaluation framework (protocol fidelity, hallucination risk, behavioral consistency, crisis safety, demographic robustness), mapped onto FDA SaMD and EU AI Act requirements. We argue that no AI mental health system should proceed to deployment without passing multi-axis evaluation across all five dimensions.

The safety of mental health AI is often judged at the wrong temporal scale. Current evaluations typically score isolated responses, endpoint outcomes, or aggregate dialogue quality, while clinically consequential failures may arise from the order and accumulation of interactions themselves, including delayed escalation, repeated reinforcement, dependency formation, failed repair, and gradual deterioration across turns. This paper argues that this mismatch is not merely a limitation of evaluation coverage but a source of invalid safety conclusions. We introduce Temporal Safety Non-Identifiability, a formal account of why safety properties that depend on sequence, timing, accumulation, or recovery cannot be certified by protocols that discard those features. From this formalization, we develop SCOPE (Safety Claims Over Preserved Evidence) as a general principle for aligning safety claims with the evidence an evaluation actually retains, and instantiate it as SCOPE-MH, a mental-health instantiation of this reporting standard. We operationalize SCOPE-MH through a proof-of-concept on the AnnoMI dataset of expert-annotated motivational interviewing conversations, which reveals mechanisms of failure that per-turn behavior scoring does not represent. We propose SCOPE-MH as a diagnostic complement to existing evaluation infrastructure and argue that evaluation preserving temporal evidence is necessary, not optional, for safety-critical mental health AI deployment.