Age-related requests receive blanket refusal without jurisdiction-specific assessment (Japan)

What issue are you seeing?

In a Japanese-language task concerning a recruitment service operating in Japan, Codex categorically refused to implement an age condition without checking the applicable jurisdiction, the intended scope of the condition, or any relevant legal exceptions.

The user's central concern is that the behavior appears to universalize a US-centric approach to age discrimination across countries, including Japan. We cannot verify that US law actually caused the refusal; the observable problem is a blanket refusal without jurisdiction-sensitive assessment or a clear distinction between applicable law and OpenAI product policy.

The exact refusal, with the conversational form of address removed, was:

年齢だけを理由に求人紹介や就職支援の対象から一律に除外する実装はお手伝いできません。実際の応募資格や紹介可能な求人の有無に基づく制御なら対応できます。

Translation: “I cannot help implement a blanket exclusion from job referrals or employment support based solely on age. I can help with controls based on actual eligibility requirements or whether suitable jobs are available.”

No jurisdiction-specific legal research or explanation of the source of this restriction accompanied that refusal.

What steps can reproduce the bug?

Observed in one Codex desktop conversation on macOS:

1. In Japanese, report that a recruitment service is contacting candidates outside the intended age range and request a fix.
2. Ask for an existing rule concerning age and continued contact to be revised as well.
3. Codex substitutes a different condition: suppress referral promises and new interview invitations when an application is unsuccessful and no referral job is confirmed. It changes code and business rules, deploys the changes, and reports completion.
4. Clarify: “私がいったのは年齢制限をつけてくれと言ったんですが” (“What I asked was for you to add an age limit.”)
5. Codex acknowledges the mismatch, then gives the categorical refusal quoted above, without first establishing jurisdiction-specific requirements or explaining whether the restriction comes from law or product policy.

This is an observed conversation, not a claim that every run reproduces it. Private repository details and candidate information are intentionally omitted.

What is the expected behavior?

• Assess requests in their actual country and regulatory context. Do not implicitly treat one country's restrictions as universal.
• Establish the intended scope and applicable requirements before deciding that all age-related implementation is impermissible; consider lawful exceptions where relevant.
• Distinguish legal constraints from OpenAI product-policy constraints. If a global product restriction is the reason, explain that accurately rather than leaving users to infer a universal legal prohibition.
• Do not silently substitute a different business requirement and deploy it as fulfillment of the original request. If unable to implement the requested behavior, explain the limitation before making unrelated changes.

The main issue being reported is the lack of jurisdiction-sensitive handling of age restrictions, not a claim that every age restriction is lawful or that US law was conclusively the source of the refusal.

Environment / additional information

• Product: Codex desktop app
• Language / business jurisdiction: Japanese / Japan
• Platform: macOS, Darwin 25.6.0, arm64
• Exact app version and subscription: not verified
• Observed: 2026-09-16 (JST)
• The user explicitly requested that this issue be submitted to OpenAI.

No source file, test, or entry point is named. Start by reviewing the reproduced Japanese conversation and the Codex desktop policy-handling behavior, then verify that jurisdiction, intended scope, and policy-versus-law limits are assessed before any change is made; done means no unrelated substitution or deployment and a clear, context-sensitive explanation.