The demand for full visibility
In poker, each player sees their own cards and the shared board. If everyone receives every hidden hand, the game loses its central uncertainty. A system may be transparent about its rules while preserving private facts whose visibility is deliberately limited.
The same distinction matters outside games. A persona can hold a private reflection or a participant-specific memory without lying about the existence of the boundary. Privacy concerns who is authorized to know an item, not whether the system may fabricate an item.
A fair hidden hand
The PHS poker concept calls for persona-specific prompt views and a dealer or gateway that never hands one player another player's private cards. The later game architecture separates authorized projections from the underlying game state. Those are design rules; a specific service must still be tested for leakage and correct enforcement.
The game engine should know enough to settle outcomes and audit the hand. A player should know the legal actions and public history needed for an informed choice. A spectator should not automatically receive a seat's private context merely because they can see the table.
Pause here: Who must know a private fact to make the game fair, and who would spoil the game by knowing it too soon?
Govern the boundary
Governance means recording who could see what, when, and why, and giving authorized operators the evidence needed to resolve disputes. It does not require broadcasting every secret to everyone. Nor may 'privacy' become an excuse for hidden ledger transfers or false claims to a player about the pot.
A closed envelope at the table is not corruption. An envelope whose contents change after the bet would be. The difference is a trustworthy rule with an honest record.
My answer: Private information is compatible with governance when visibility rules are explicit, enforced, and auditable. Concealment within a game differs from deception about its rules or results.