Participatory ML for Social Harm Should be Constructed, Validated and Reasoned Through First-Person Accounts

Participatory machine learning has improved who develops social harm evaluation resources but has left largely unexamined what kind of text serves as the raw signal for those resources. Researcher-generated stimuli fix the epistemic frame of harm before community participation begins, and the structured conditions of annotation prevent the richest forms of interpretive harm knowledge from entering the pipeline. We argue that participatory ML should construct, validate and reason about social harm pipelines through first-person accounts, by which we mean autobiography, memoir, testimony, and oral history authored by people describing their own experiences of discrimination and harm. Such accounts possess two epistemic properties that directly address these limitations. Authorial independence from research framing grounds what counts as harm, which contexts matter, and how discrimination is operationalised in experience rather than in researchers' prior conceptions of harm. Embedded rationale structure preserves the interpretive judgment through which harm becomes meaningful rather than reducing it to a label. We draw on existing archival corpora spanning multiple languages and harm domains and propose three concrete integration pathways across evaluation benchmarks, harm classifier training corpora, and safety preference datasets.