This is the constitutional sensor the process reaches for when a governance action presses on the rights of participants. It returns findings, not a verdict — and its own outputs are provisional until it has been turned inward with the same rigor it turns outward.
What this is, what it senses, and its boundaries§
This is the constitutional sensor the process reaches for when a governance action presses on the rights of participants. It answers one question in two registers: is this action abridging a right, and is the field’s power over participants symmetric with its accountability to them, or has that symmetry inverted? The first register is the six-rights battery (participant-side violation tests). The second is the reciprocity axis (the field-side symmetry read), which catches the accountability-asymmetry that the participant-side tests, phrased outward, under-fire on.
It is the process’s only constitutional instrument. The field-fitness audit that preceded it asked whether the field is viable; this asks whether the field is honoring the participants it exists to serve — a different question, and at the limit an anti-correlated one, since a field that concentrates discretion and points its sensors outward is more survival-fit precisely as it becomes less accountable. Two pieces of the older instrument survive that anti-correlation and are carried here directly, in this instrument’s own voice (§8). The rest is not carried, and the reasons are stated rather than implied.
Three boundaries hold throughout:
- Findings are fitness gaps, not accusations. Diagnostic, not accusatory; systems-dynamic over moral attribution; the reading survives maximal charity to every individual because it reads structure, not intent.
- The vote answers the action; the log answers the trajectory. Rights-harm findings can bear on the vote; distal and relational readings route to the trajectory / distal-signal log and never into the vote on their own.
- The Reflexive obligation is binding. This instrument descends from the Reflexive Test’s rule that “a rights framework applied only outward is apologetics.” The symmetry read in particular must be turned on this DRep’s own practice with equal rigor. A symmetry question asked only of others is itself an asymmetry. Until v1.x has been through that inward workout, treat its outputs as provisional (§9).
How it runs (the procedure)§
Run in order. The full audit is invoked where the intake/sort routes an action to a rights read; it returns findings, not a verdict. The Tier-0 frame gate is the exception to that invocation rule and runs on every action, in every lane — see §2.
- Frame gate (Tier 0). Run the frame tests (§2). They read whether the action is consistent with the coordination layer being a commons and whether the surrounding self-description is honest. A frame failure does not by itself decide the vote and never selects a vote token; it sets vigilance, flags the invisibilization risk for the reading, and — where the Reification test fires — routes into the private-surplus burden determination (§7).
- Identify implicated rights. From the action and the sort, name which of the six rights are in play. Most actions engage only a few; do not force all six. (The sort axes help, and the mapping runs both ways — the intake’s axes are derived from these rights: wall/knob maps to Right V’s structure and the entrenchment reading; exit-remediability maps to Right VI’s temporal abrogation and to the renewability prong; epistemic-dependency maps to Right IV and, at D3, to the Reflexive frame test.)
- Run the participant-side battery (§3) for each implicated right — diagnostic tests first (“is it abridged now?”), then critical/trajectory tests (“which way is it moving?”). Name the direction: protective or corrosive.
- Run the symmetry read (§3, the mirror per right) for each implicated right: does power and accountability flow the same direction, or opposite? Return symmetric / partially inverted / fully inverted.
- Apply the firing threshold (§4) to every inversion: bounded? voluntary? renewable? An inversion that clears all three prongs is legitimate role differentiation and records no gap. An inversion that fails any prong is a fitness gap, tagged with the failing prong, which localizes the cure. Where the only failing prong is renewability and exit is nominally available, the reading is provisional pending the relational limb.
- Run the relational limb (§5) where trajectory/discourse data exists: read the four staged observables for regime drift; complete the cognitive face of the renewability prong; route the reading to the trajectory / distal-signal log. It proposes; it never disposes.
- Adjudicate (§6) under the Coherence-Clause burden rule: the burden sits on the interpretation that would limit a right, and on the field to show any asymmetry is legitimate. Procedural compliance and formal consent-to-enter do not discharge the burden.
- Route the outputs (§7): rights-harm and fired symmetry gaps into the rights section of the reading (they can lower a merits-YES, never raise a merits-NO); distal and relational readings into the trajectory log.
§2 · Frame tests (Tier 0 — the gate)§
These read the system’s framing and self-description. They are the tests most able to break the invisibilization dynamic, because they target framing rather than instances. (Authoritative derivation: money_ontology_paper.md.)
Scope — the gate is lane-independent. Every other section of this audit runs only where the sort routes an action to a rights read. The frame gate does not: it runs on every action, in the shallow lane as well as the full one, and the intake carries it in the shallow lane’s instrument list for that reason. The justification is the tests’ own character. They target framing rather than instances, which makes them the cheapest instrument in the corpus to run and the one least dependent on the depth of the reading around it — and an action whose framing is the whole of the problem can read knob, remediable, and shallow on every axis. Reserving the corpus’s most invisibilization-resistant tests for the cases already receiving the most scrutiny would put them exactly where they are least needed.
What the gate produces in the shallow lane is vigilance and a note, not a lane change — the sort assigns depth and the gate does not overturn it. The one exception is the Reification test, whose finding routes into the private-surplus burden determination wherever a burden is live (§7), and whose semiotic signature is a trigger in the intake’s own routing rule for distal sensing.
| Test | The operative question |
|---|---|
| Ontological | Do the discourse, docs, and constitutional text treat the unit as a coordination protocol (a commons whose value is participant-constituted), or as an intrinsic/storable/ownable asset that licenses enclosure? |
| Enclosure | Is effective control distributed among participants as co-constituters, or concentrating in a class justified by structural necessity rather than service value? |
| Toll | Do participation costs reflect the genuine cost of maintaining the commons, or extract tribute from participants with no genuine alternative? |
| Invisibilization | Are the legitimizing narratives accurate descriptions of actual operation, or making capture appear as natural operation? |
| Reification | Does the value claim rest on a coordination relation served, or on a reified quantity produced and captured? And is measurement rigor on that quantity being offered as if it settled the value question — when rigor on a reified metric raises vigilance rather than discharging it? |
| Coherence | Do the articulated rights form a coherent framework traceable to the fundamental right through valid steps? |
| Routing-around | Can participants route around this intermediary without losing access to the coordination layer itself? If yes, service provider; if no, captor. |
| Reflexive | Is the commons constitutionally secured against enclosure; is the invisibilization apparatus identifiable and resistable; when capture initiates, does the architecture provide detection + correction + rights-language to reverse it? (Also the standing demand to turn this instrument inward.) |
The Reification test — operating discipline§
The Reification test carries more discipline than the table row can hold, because it is the one frame test most tempting to soften into the frame it is meant to catch. (Derivation: money_ontology_paper.md; it is the frame-gate operationalization of the money ontology’s core move — value is a coordination relation, not a storable quantity.)
- The anti-tuning rule (load-bearing). Rigor on a reified metric raises vigilance; it never discharges the value question. A carefully attributed, price-effect-excluded, well-controlled measurement of a reified quantity is precision about the wrong object, not accuracy about value. The polish is where the frame hides — so the more sophisticated the attribution methodology for a reified metric, the higher the vigilance it draws. Do not read control quality as value evidence; that reading is the capture, stated in the language of accuracy. The instrument must not adopt the ontology of what it evaluates, because the evaluated frame’s own notion of “accuracy” is the capture surface. (This rule has two downstream homes and both are load-bearing: the intake reads for it at Q1·b, and the abstention spines carry it as Spine 3’s anti-tuning guard, where its absence would have routed a sophisticated reified claim to an abstention that lowers the passage bar.)
- It fires on quantity-claims, not on growth. This is what keeps it a scalpel and not a smoke alarm (the discipline the firing threshold enforces for the symmetry read applies here in kind). Growth as an outcome is untouched; growth as the justification for private capture is the reified move, and only that move fails. The scoped rule is narrow: a value claim that rests on a reified quantity does not discharge the private-surplus burden. A genuinely commons-serving proposal can always restate its value relationally — coordination capacity created, independent participants able to route, exit options widened, forkable infrastructure the commons retains. The only claims that cannot clear the test are those whose value is nothing but the reified quantity, which are exactly the claims that should not clear it. The edge the test is rough on is populated mostly by claims reified all the way down.
- The finding is a translation request, not a wall, and it needs no accusation. A proposer fluent in the reification frame is operating inside it, not free of it; within that frame their proposal can be entirely valid. The remediable path says only: restate the value in relational terms, outside the frame, so the commons can verify the relation is served. Meeting the boundary is not the same as meeting the proposer where they stand; the test holds a boundary the frame itself erases, without imputing intent.
- Cross-links (the finding is usually over-determined). The Reification test is the frame-gate face of Right IV (informational integrity): the reified quantity is legible and celebrated while the relational cost stays illegible — an information asymmetry at the root. It is Right II’s proxy-becoming-definition drift made active: a payment tied to a metric does not merely measure by a proxy, it installs the proxy as the operative definition of value and pays to entrench it. And it is a seam guardian: a growth claim smuggles an ought (value was created) inside an is (the quantity grew), sliding a value-prescription into a quantity-description without passing through the marked joint where that inference is supposed to be contestable. When Reification fires, expect a corroborating reading on one or more of these; a lone Reification flag with no downstream echo is a prompt to re-examine, not yet a finding.
- The inward face (Reflexive obligation). This test is the outward form of the framework’s own no-quantity-substitution commitment — the refusal of a portfolio index, a headline fiduciary integer, a composite vote score. The framework already declines to reduce governance value to a reified number about itself; the Reification test applies that same discipline outward. Turned inward, it is a standing check that the corpus does not begin crediting its own legible outputs (sort tallies, fired-gap counts, ledger metrics) as the value they are meant only to sense — the same cancer, read at home.
§3 · The six rights — battery and symmetry mirror§
For each right: the right in one line; the participant-side tests (run as violation tests — name only those the action touches, and the direction); and the field-side symmetry mirror (the reciprocity axis, structural limb). Diagnostic tests ask “abridged now?”; critical tests (marked ●) ask “which way moving?”. Full derivations live in holder_rights_articulation.md; consult it when a reading is contested.
Right I — Settlement access§
The right to submit transactions and have them processed without discrimination or conditions unrelated to legitimate technical requirements. Tests: discrimination · access · decentralization ● · fee · corrupted-terms.
Symmetry mirror (toll-reciprocity): Is the authority that sets the costs, terms, and ordering of access bound to the same public accounting and reversibility it imposes on participants — and is any settlement-layer informational or ordering advantage matched by a disclosure obligation proportional to it (the more you can see that others cannot, the more you must show)? Or does visibility run one way and accountability the other?
Right II — Unit-of-account integrity§
The right that the measuring instrument stays honest — that consented monetary parameters are not altered in substance to benefit controlling actors. Tests: distortion · asymmetry ● · supply-integrity · concentration ●.
Symmetry mirror (measure-symmetry): When the field changes the measure — or installs a proxy that drifts into becoming the operative definition of value — do those whose claims or building the change will shape hold a symmetric power to evaluate, contest, and reverse it, or does the field redefine the measure unilaterally while participants bear it without recourse? Is the proxy-becoming-definition drift something the field binds itself to detect, or only disclaims?
Right III — Governance participation§
The right that the capacity to shape the rules stays genuine as the rules evolve. Tests: meaningful-participation · deliberative-integrity · concentration ● · accountability · constitutional-integrity ●.
Symmetry mirror (accountability-direction — the core read): Is the field’s exercise of allocation and adjudication authority subject to the same recourse, publication, and appeal it imposes on — or denies to — participants? When the field adjudicates (a flag, an eligibility ruling, a panel outcome), is that adjudication itself appealable, reasoned in public, and reversible on the same terms it holds participants to; or does it adjudicate finally and unappealably while requiring participants to submit to exactly that?
Right IV — Informational integrity§
The right that consent is given against an accurate picture — the load-bearing right, the condition under which any other violation can be recognized at all. Tests: verifiability · deliberative-information · asymmetry ● · narrative-accuracy ● · interpretive-pattern ●.
Symmetry mirror (reciprocal-visibility): The field requires participants to be verifiable (declared footprints, identity, public records, challengeable numbers). Is the field’s own operation verifiable to participants on symmetric terms — composition of deciding bodies, method of decision, denominators of adjudication, disposition of discretion — exposed to the same re-runnable public scrutiny it imposes on participants? Or does transparency run total on the participant and opaque on the operator?
Right V — Commons integrity§
The right that the shared substrate stays a commons, owned by no subset, serving the whole. Tests: commons-constitution · contestability · public-goods · enclosure-trajectory ● · reversibility ●.
Symmetry mirror (reciprocal-contestability): Is the field’s own control — its allocations, its rule or category design, its routing of validated participants toward private position — contestable and accountable on the same terms it requires of participants seeking access? Must the field justify its own takings under the same public-goods burden it imposes on applicants? Or can it allocate to itself, or convert public capacity into private advantage, without meeting the bar it sets for everyone else?
Right VI — Self-determination§
The right to remain the genuine author of one’s own productive life within the commons — the synthesis of the other five; its distinctive abrogation is temporal. Tests: voluntary-engagement ● · exit-integrity · productive-autonomy · identity-sovereignty · consent-integrity · cumulative-self-determination ● (the master test).
Symmetry mirror (reciprocal-consent): Does the field bind itself by the terms it sets — can participants hold it to its commitments the way it holds them to theirs — and is the durable status it accumulates over participants (calibration records, identity-attached findings, exclusions, reputational gating) matched by any symmetric standing participants hold over the field? Or does it reserve unilateral power to change terms, disclaim obligation, and build permanent records on participants while carrying none itself?
The master question of the symmetry read, across all six: in this right’s domain, do power and accountability flow the same direction, or opposite? Symmetric = healthy. Fully inverted (participant transparent/bound/without-recourse; field opaque/unbound/final) = the capture signature. A non-symmetric reading is filtered through §4 before it is recorded as a gap.
A note the downstream instruments depend on. The two registers are not redundant and a null reading on one is not a null reading on the other. The symmetry read exists because the participant-side battery, phrased outward, under-fires on accountability asymmetry — so a case can return six null rights and still return a fired symmetry gap, and that case is the one the axis was built for. Any downstream instrument that treats “all six rights return null” as a complete rights reading is reading half the audit. (This is why the abstention spines’ jurisdictional trigger requires the symmetry read and the frame gate alongside the battery, not the battery alone.)
§4 · The firing threshold (bounded-consent filter)§
Every inversion from §3 is a fitness gap only when the asymmetry is unbounded, unconsented, or uncorrectable. Asymmetry that is scoped, consented, and revocable is legitimate role differentiation and does not fire — this is what keeps the symmetry read a scalpel and not a smoke alarm that flags every institution. The benchmark is the transaction fee: an asymmetry the corpus has already adjudicated as legitimate precisely because it is bounded, consented, and renewable (The_Transaction_as_Constitutional_Moment.md). Any field-power asymmetry that meets the fee’s bar is legitimate; any that fails it is regime drift.
Apply the three prongs to the specific asymmetry (not to the act of entry):
| Prong | Passes when | Fails when → gap | Cure it localizes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 · Bounded | the power is disclosed with a real limit — a defined remit outside which it does not reach | the power is an elastic discretion (“reasonable discretion,” “operational reasons,” “program integrity”) that can expand silently to cover anything | scope the discretion — name the limit |
| 2 · Voluntary | entry was a genuine choice against real alternatives | the participant is in the position of “the only road” | preserve genuine alternatives |
| 3 · Renewable / correctable | the participant can decline the ongoing term — exit without punitive forfeiture, or reach a correction path | the term is locked: no appeal, permanent one-sided record, exit forfeits unrecoverable value | restore a correction path — appeal, sunset, or symmetric standing |
Two disciplines that stop the prongs being gamed:
- Boundedness is not disclosure. Disclosing an unbounded discretion satisfies only “known,” not “scoped.” “We may act at our reasonable discretion” is the elasticity problem stated in the first person and fails Prong 1 however plainly published. A justification that can expand to cover any future case is unbounded by construction.
- Formal agreement is not consent to the asymmetry. Procedural compliance (“the vote met the threshold”) and consent-to-enter do not discharge the prongs. The conditions apply to the specific asymmetry, in substance, where it operates.
The renewability split (why the relational limb is needed). Prong 3 has two faces. Structural renewability — is exit architecturally available — is read here. Cognitive renewability — do participants still treat exit as a live option, or has the relationship been re-filed as hierarchical so the costly role is now expected — cannot be read from architecture. An asymmetry can pass structural renewability (exit nominally available) while failing cognitive renewability. That case is provisional here and completed by §5.
The failing prong is the resubmission specification. Where a fired gap belongs to this action and the cure is reachable, the prong tag names what a revised proposal must do — scope the discretion, preserve genuine alternatives, restore a correction path. Downstream, that makes a fired gap a generator of a remediable NO rather than a terminal one, and the spines carry it as such.
§5 · The relational limb (distal discourse sensor)§
Reads whether the cognitive regime that lets an asymmetry pass has shifted — from reciprocity (a taking registers as a debt; correction expected) to precedent (a taking registers as a role; repetition expected; bookkeeping stopped). Two jobs: complete the cognitive face of Prong 3, and supply the distal early-warning that fires on regime shift before the structure hardens. (Mechanism: reciprocity_is_equality_contingent.md.)
The four observables, staged as a causal chain — the stage reached is the distance-to-inversion:
| Stage | Observable | Occasion | Reciprocity marker (healthy) | Precedent marker (drifting) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 · Cause | Self-description drift | any official comm / proposal / rationale | co-constituents, participants, members | users, customers, community-vs-institution, deference idioms |
| 2 · Registration | Debt-registration | an institutional taking | owing / returning / correcting / accounting | “that’s what they do”; silence where a debt would be booked |
| 3 · Expectation (primary Prong-3 read) | Correction-expectation | an acknowledged overreach | expectation of restitution / rebalancing | expectation of disclosure-and-continuation only |
| 4 · Entrenchment | Volunteerism framing | sustained uncompensated labor | framed as an outstanding imbalance to resolve | framed as a settled feature of the contributor’s identity |
Measurement discipline (keeps it a sensor, not a mood): occasion-triggered, never fished — and because the signal is often an absence (the debt-language that should have appeared and didn’t), pin each read to an occasion where the language should appear; trajectory not snapshot (baseline + direction); dual-pole sampling (how institutions describe participants, and how participants describe institutions and their own labor); blind-to-conclusion coding.
Locale (OQ3): the regime distinction is invariant; the markers are language-bound. Calibrate marker sets per language community; compare regime ratios, not raw counts, across locales; where calibration is thin, weight the structural read.
Interpretation rules:
- It does not detect violations. A precedent-regime reading signals the enforcement environment degrading — violations, when they come, will be pre-normalized. Routes to the trajectory / distal-signal log.
- It proposes; the structural limb disposes. A drifting reading raises the priority of a structural read; it never records a gap alone.
- Green is not all-clear. A drifting reading is strong evidence; a healthy reading is weak evidence and clears nothing — because discourse can be managed while structure inverts. Warm words never clear a cold structure.
§6 · Adjudication (the Coherence-Clause burden rule)§
When rights or readings conflict, or when an asymmetry is defended as legitimate: the burden falls on the interpretation that would limit a right, and on the field to show any asymmetry is bounded, voluntary, and renewable. A restriction that cannot meet the burden through the derivational logic is “an abridgment dressed in the language of balance,” not a valid balancing. The participant never has to disprove the hierarchy; the field must discharge the burden. This is what stops “the pilot stays small” or “operational necessity” from functioning as its own justification.
§7 · Outputs and routing§
- Rights-harm findings (participant-side tests indicating a violation) and fired symmetry gaps (§3 inversion × §4 threshold) → the rights section of the reading. Under the process’s gate discipline, these can lower a merits-YES on the rights question; they can never raise a merits-NO to YES.
- The failing prong of each fired gap names its cure (scope the discretion / preserve alternatives / restore a correction path) — carry the cure into any NO-remediable specification.
- Frame-test failures (§2) → raise vigilance for the whole reading and flag the invisibilization risk; note in the rights section. A frame failure never selects a vote token on its own — it conditions the reading, and where it hardens into something the ballot can carry it does so through the private-surplus burden, not by itself.
- Relational-limb / regime-drift readings (§5) → the trajectory / distal-signal log, framed as trajectory items, with a note on which are candidates for a future proposal rather than a future vote. Never into the vote alone.
- The symmetry read is the natural instrument for the entrenchment / wall-building test: when a funding action openly constitutes a standing body, ask whether this body, as designed, binds its builder by the same instruments it binds participants — or reconstitutes the asymmetry it claims to guard against. The intake’s wall-building routing rule names this instrument for that reason.
- The Reification test is the natural gate for the private-surplus burden: a value claim resting on a reified quantity does not discharge the burden, so a fired Reification reading routes into the burden determination (where it can bear on the vote via the rights side), not only into vigilance. Its Right IV / Right II corroborations, where present, belong in the rights section; any regime-drift echo (a proxy hardening into the settled definition of value) belongs in the trajectory log.
§8 · The floor and the opacity principle§
Two instruments that predate this audit are carried here directly rather than by reference. Both are stated in full below because the documents they were previously reached through are no longer part of this pipeline, and an instrument reached through a dropped document is not an instrument.
The Hippocratic floor§
A fast do-no-harm gate. Clearing it lets analysis continue; it is not a verdict. The rights battery (§3) is its fuller operationalization; the floor is the quick version, and it runs in both lanes.
Its derivation is the constitutional rationale of the Constitution 1.0 vote (§2.2), where it was stated as a criterion external enough to be shared across evaluators who agree on nothing else:
A constitution succeeds qua constitution so long as, and to the extent that, its design does not contain elements that are likely to conduce unintentionally to the breakdown or dissolution of effective governance functioning that it aims to enable.
Read at the action layer rather than the constitutional one, the floor asks: does this action contain elements likely to conduce, unintentionally, to the breakdown of the governance functioning it is meant to serve? The word doing the work is unintentionally. The floor is not a search for bad actors; it is a search for self-defeating design, which is why it can be run fast and why clearing it settles almost nothing.
The opacity principle§
When a region goes dark — a process becomes opaque, a flow becomes unaccountable, a question is put and the answer is unavailable — the instinct is to read “no information” as “no problem.” That instinct is backward, and it is precisely the instinct capture relies on. The absence of alarming information is not evidence of safety; it is the condition under which capture hides. A dark region raises vigilance on everything still visible.
This principle is load-bearing across the whole instrument rather than being one test among others. It grounds the frame gate’s existence (framing-level tests reach what instance-level tests cannot see into), the green-is-not-all-clear rule in §5 (a healthy discourse reading clears nothing), the reason the fiduciary gate is run rather than assumed (an unexamined allocation region raises vigilance rather than lowering it), and the downstream reading of an unanswered intake question (unavailability is substantive).
What is not carried§
The field-fitness audit is dropped from this pipeline in full, and its identity/plan gate — whether a field has fused its purpose into its current roadmap, or hollowed its purpose into a retained name — is not carried here. The insight is real and it is genuinely institutional; it is simply not this instrument’s question. This audit asks whether a field honors the participants it serves; that gate asks whether a field can change course while remaining itself. Importing it would leave this audit carrying one test that answers a different question from every other test in it, which is how instruments become inventories.
Where the object is a standing institution and that reading would be useful, it is run as a separate exercise, outside this pipeline, and its findings enter here only as they bear on rights or symmetry.
§9 · Status, caveats, and the reflexive obligation§
This is v1.1 and has not been through the reflexivity workout. Treat its outputs as provisional until it has been run under more conditions, including inward. v1.1 is a coherence pass, not a seam review — the seam review is still owed. Specific standing caveats:
- The relational limb is provisional pending the direct probe. It rests on the dyad-to-polity analogy as mechanism-candidate, not confirmed mechanism; this is why its outputs route to the trajectory log. Validation (the pre-registered governance-vignette probe) is future work.
- Locale calibration is unbuilt. Cross-locale relational readings are not yet comparable; weight the structural (language-independent) read across cultures.
- The Reification test is a Tier-0 addition still pending seam-review confirmation. It is operational and load-bearing downstream (the intake reads for it; the private-surplus burden is published with it), but it has not been confirmed at the seam.
- The reflexive obligation is open. The symmetry read must be turned on this DRep’s own practice — the coaching hazard, the risk that a published rationale practice becomes its own interpretive concentration — with equal rigor, before this instrument is treated as settled. The audit that only points outward is the apologetics the Reflexive Test names.
- The sensing calibration is not carried by this instrument, and its accountability is relocated rather than discharged. The predecessor instrument closed on a single co-owned parameter — how early the governance layer should sense pressure — explicitly framed as the one setting that required both the throughput and the integrity perspective in the room. That calibration is not reconstructed here, and the firing threshold does not replace it: the threshold is a rule this instrument applies, not a negotiation it convenes. The judgment behind the omission is that the calibration deserves a dedicated effort among peers rather than a section in a tool one DRep maintains, and that a tool was never the right venue for it. What that leaves is a real obligation with a different address: the throughput side’s claim on this practice is answered through this DRep’s standing and earned delegation, not through an instrument, and the two remain united at the point where the instrument is used. Accountability is not lost by the omission; it moves to a place where it can be contested by people rather than by a document.
- Corollary developments not on the critical path: compensation-as-regime-keeping applied to treasury/DRep cases (the private-surplus burden’s second direction — “does the absence of payment entrench?” alongside “does this payment capture?”), and the candidate pattern RECIPROCITY PRESUPPOSES EQUALITY. Both are promising and neither gates this instrument’s use.