# Candidate dynamic account, pass 3 Target length: 700 to 1,000 words of account, followed by the source apparatus. ## Account Sweddit participants assembled around a proposed flag, then pursued overlapping drawings, attacks and repair tasks. The initial proposer named a location, put down a blue starting mark and asked others to follow. Later task choices could arise in Discord and return as a voted plan. The model therefore locates particular proposals and commitments in the public record without crediting Sweddit with every decision made elsewhere. A specified object or time could receive a usable contribution commitment, as the scheduled Lilla Bält call and alarm response show (`A01`). A proposed method remains a proposal: the full attack thread does not establish that the four-group allocation was adopted or caused the claimed victory. New work could conflict with maintenance of the old flag. Reports of erasure prompted an advocate to explain why a plan had been publicised, while portrait builders asked cleaners not to repair their emerging picture (`A02`). The point of that explanation was what the marks were intended to become. It was separate from a decision that the new drawing deserved space or priority. The horse exchange gives a local reported change: 3bfpkAVUXTH6WuKOgZcSzmKKny8= says they had placed blue and now help instead. I read that before/now account in the plan-explanation exchange as a possible recognition-based redirection (`A03`). The record does not identify the exact message that changed the speaker's reading or independently observe the pixels. A king-painter's admission establishes acknowledged erasure without an equally explicit new action. Arch provides the stronger warning against a general approval-to-cooperation claim: a participant says the decision was to spare the logo while other people keep removing it. The horse's placement and king-priority objections remain deliberate alternatives (`K03`). Recognition can accompany changed work without settling a common goal. Claims to space had different stated grounds (`P10`). Arch advocates invoked earlier presence and having asked nicely; Maryland received a visible reassurance; a Dutch-boundary speaker threatened war unless a flag moved. Overwatch speakers disputed whether existing representation justified more space, and a Forsen response refused peace. These acts make who may remain a matter to grant or contest. Their words need not specify reciprocal work, and the model does not infer that they compelled compliance. Participants also specified obligations between parties. A speaker describes space and protection for Maryland in return for repairing the flag while Swedes sleep. A pledge to defend during dark hours and a later report of ongoing cleaning follow in that thread (`A04`). Madotsuki's conditional repair supplies a comparison. Germany's accepted reciprocal attack work is a different kind of commitment, not corroboration of protection-for-upkeep. These words establish terms, commitments and attributed work; they do not verify performance or show that a bargain uniquely caused every repair. Threats, denied requests and renewed destruction pleas prevent a consensual-diplomacy account. An undertaking could also stop for a reason that recognition and recruitment do not resolve. The ambitious drawing's author says the available colours cannot make the proposed design look right and calls it off (`A05`). Another participant stresses competing work and proposes a smaller drawing. The cancellation is an undated edit, so the model retains the author's reason without putting that edit before later-posted recruitment replies. Technical feasibility and contention over effort remain different accounts of the same troubled attempt. Discussion had its own authority. Participants created or named planning venues; moderators routed event talk out of the main stream. One visitor promises to repost and another says they did not know the dedicated venue existed. That is evidence of a response to routing, not a demonstrated change in drawing. The expected venue-to-pixel relation (`A06`) remains outside the empirical model. Forum authority and control of contributions cannot be treated as one command. Placement closure at hour 73 changes what continued work can be about. Participants preserve the finished image, thank protectors and contest destruction. Maryland's account says Sweden spared its flag, while a Forsen speaker attributes aggression to Sweddit. Those are contrasting accounts of outcomes and legitimacy, not a sequence in which the community changed its mind. Banner and reciprocal-flair requests then specify new room artifacts. Their observed order after thanks does not establish that gratitude caused them. R2 records the last observed coordinating request at hour 95.71833333333333, not the end of all organizing. Work remaining is participant-reported, with no view of the canvas. The supported explanation is task-specific adjustment across these undertakings. An explicit call can obtain a commitment, an intended image can need explanation, and reciprocal terms can specify help. The record also shows obstruction by different desired work and a stated technical limit. It does not show a single governing plan, a universal need to renegotiate every task, or a completed feedback cycle. Stable planning elsewhere remains a live alternative for the origin of particular choices, while the local repair and dissent passages require distinctions it does not explain alone. ## Elements and range Elements concern actions or states in this room's text. They do not stand for whole themes merely being present. The empirical ranges below separate observed attempts, reports and unknown outcomes. There is no cross-case third tier. ### P01: Proposing and revising a shared undertaking Kind: process. Tier: `T4-001`. Dimension: `D01`. Since: R4-pass-1. Status: standing. Range: From a new flag or drawing to a revised extent, competing priority, banner or reciprocal flair; a proposal does not establish adoption. Source codes: `c0004`, `c0017`, `c0430`, `c0707`, `c0817`. ### P02: Specifying, soliciting and scheduling contributions to an undertaking Kind: process. Tier: `T4-003`. Dimension: `D01`. Since: R4-pass-1. Status: standing. Range: Calls, methods, commitments and supplied resources, with participation and execution kept separate; an illustrative allocation need not be adopted. Source codes: `c0005`, `c0144`, `c0146`, `c0147`, `c0148`, `c0767`. ### P03: Explaining which disputed marks belong to an intended build Kind: process. Tier: `T4-003`. Dimension: `D01`. Since: R4-pass-1. Status: standing. Range: Public identification and proposed private explanations when a current build is painted over; this includes an attempt with no measured reception. Source codes: `c0702`, `c0703`, `c0451`, `c0514`, `c0583`. ### P04: Redirecting one's pixel contribution after a corrected reading Kind: process. Tier: `T4-003`. Dimension: `D01`. Since: R4-pass-1. Status: standing. Range: An explicit local self-report of a before/now switch is core; apologies or newly acknowledged erasure without a promised switch are partial evidence only. Source codes: `c0709`, `c0704`, `c0454`. ### P05: Making accommodation or protection conditional on reciprocal help Kind: process. Tier: `T4-002`. Dimension: `D02`. Since: R4-pass-1. Status: standing. Range: Unequal offers, accepted exchanges and reported conditional repairs; a participant may claim a bargain without representing all painters. Source codes: `c0588`, `c0494`. ### P06: Pledging or reporting upkeep for another party Kind: process. Tier: `T4-003`. Dimension: `D01`. Since: R4-pass-1. Status: standing. Range: A future upkeep pledge or a report of current repairs; neither independently verifies pixels, timing or fulfilled obligations. Acceptance of reciprocal attack work is outside this process. Source codes: `c0589`, `c0590`, `c0494`. ### P07: Routing event discussion to a designated venue Kind: process. Tier: `T4-004`. Dimension: `D02`. Since: R4-pass-1. Status: standing. Range: A referral, challenge or accepted repost; routing authority does not establish command over drawing and a promise to move is not observed downstream work. Source codes: `c0596`, `c0597`, `c0627`, `c0708`. ### P08: Recounting and preserving collective work and its disputed meaning Kind: process. Tier: `T4-005`. Dimension: none, as `T4-005` remains outside the dimensions. Since: R4-pass-1. Status: standing. Range: Live victory, retrospective praise, blame and a final account; opposing speakers may disagree without the community changing its mind. Source codes: `c0790`, `c0783`, `c0814`, `c0823`, `c0824`. ### P09: Cancelling an undertaking for a stated feasibility limit Kind: process. Tier: `T4-001`. Dimension: `D01`. Since: R4-pass-1. Status: standing. Range: The author's explicit cancellation and reason; an observational ending or another participant's concern alone is not cancellation. Source codes: `c0436`, `c0437`, `c0438`. ### K01: Intended new marks are treated as damage during maintenance Kind: condition. Tier: `T4-003`. Dimension: `D01`. Since: R4-pass-1. Status: standing. Range: Recognised erasure of an intended build is distinct from deliberate opposition; the quote must support the mistaken reading, not merely the presence of erasure. Source codes: `c0016`, `c0451`, `c0704`, `c0710`. ### K02: The author judges the proposed design unusable with the available colours Kind: condition. Tier: `T4-001`. Dimension: `D01`. Since: R4-pass-1. Status: standing. Range: A stated task-specific palette limit, not all ambitious projects, labour scarcity or a preference for a nicer image. Source codes: `c0436`. ### K03: A recognised project remains disputed on placement or competing priorities Kind: condition. Tier: `T4-001`. Dimension: `D01`. Since: R4-pass-1. Status: standing. Range: Explicit continuing objections or a decision coexisting with removal; identifying the object need not make it a preferred task. Source codes: `c0707`, `c0713`, `c0403`. ### P10: Claiming, granting or refusing a right to remain in shared space Kind: process. Tier: `T4-002`. Dimension: `D02`. Since: R4-pass-2. Status: standing. Range: Pleas, reassurance, prior-presence and kindness claims, imposed boundaries and retaliatory refusals where the turn's right-to-remain claim does not itself specify reciprocal work. Lack of stated terms does not prove that no private terms existed. Neither a threat nor a permission statement establishes enforcement. This process answers the pass-1 residues without broadening the reciprocal process `P05`. Earlier presence, asking nicely, an asserted territorial limit and retaliation are different grounds for the same issue, who may remain. They are not one consensual norm. The model adds no arrow from the asserted right to successful enforcement. `c0081`, [deleted], hour 7.22, item `62owul`, thread `62owul`, offsets 88:115: > Move your flag, or its war. `c0380`, fPYLXGntqtV9TX/gkL2GpUdrrsE=, hour 41.11138888888889, item `62yqik`, thread `62yqik`, offsets 0:60: > Kan vi låta Arch Linux loggan vara? De bad ju snällt om det. `c0048`, 3I/tYuhtGfHdKLTbWaBNTvrm798=, hour 27.245, item `dfpa0uz`, thread `62mukf`, offsets 0:64: > Please Do not hurt our little Maryland flag, strong Swedish men. `c0049`, rYQZ4d6IPNZSs8AfOVdY5m1LOEk=, hour 27.3925, item `dfpadh1`, thread `62mukf`, offsets 0:20: > we wont, dont worry! `c0502`, Y4oDQ9BJDuJzjxyVICJZaVCdSbI=, hour 72.94333333333333, item `dfrzaq8`, thread `630coj`, offsets 0:59: > they declared war on sweden, so now they are doomed. sorry. ## Relations and their evidence The arrows connect scoped processes and conditions tied to higher themes, rather than whole topic bins or measured amounts. They relate presences and reported transitions, not degrees. All current empirical arrows are fair or thin; none has a strong-arrow frequency or live/aftermath claim. The unit of theoretical sampling is the registered episode throughout. No base-rate null was tested: base_rate_beaten=null means unavailable, not a beaten baseline. Sampling and every failure clause were declared before grading. Complete canonical fields, including all source quotes and samples, are in model/arrows.jsonl. ### A01: `P01` to `P02` Kind: order. Grounding: codes-read. Strength: fair. In model: true. Mechanism: A specified undertaking or time gives a volunteer a definite contribution to promise or supply; the claim is about an observed call-response sequence, not successful execution. Fails if: The alleged response precedes the call, rejects its undertaking or only recounts completed work with no ongoing contribution. Grounding and limit: The timed call and another speaker's alarm promise supply the primary call-response instance; the banner request/resource exchange is a comparison. The launch's instruction is not a volunteer response. The early king thread also supplies a requested grid resource without proving execution. Bound: Observed specified calls with explicit linked commitments/resources only. No claim that every proposal recruits people or that the proposed four-group allocation was used. The initial proposer instructing others in the same item is not a call-response instance. Negative check: not-addressed. Failure present in the retained mechanism: not-addressed. Theoretical samples: - `E-19`: Test a new room-artifact undertaking after placement closes, rather than another attack. holds. The banner request and supplied cleaned resource concern the same ongoing use; installation remains unobserved. - `E-22`: A timed division into teams could fail to gain a response. not testable. Only the initiating coded turn survives; no response is measured. - `E-04`: A proposed king build could remain too unclear for a useful contribution. holds. A participant asks for a template and start time; the later grid-guide statement supplies a resource. The template request alone is not a contribution commitment, and the unseen image is not inspected. - `E-01`: Recheck the source instance challenged by the critic rather than count the launch instruction as uptake. not testable. c0004 and c0005 are the same speaker and item. They specify prospective work but do not supply another contributor's response. `c0144`, A82cS84xihPyp633kXbBVezOPIg=, hour 19.795, item `62s8z5`, thread `62s8z5`, offsets 0:46: > OPERATION LILLA BÄLT - VI SLÅR TILL KLOCKAN 16 `c0146`, PMTSUaECngOCtW7asKKEqX7do7U=, hour 20.03472222222222, item `dfotweb`, thread `62s8z5`, offsets 0:54: > Klart man ställer upp! Sätter alarm strax innan 16:00! ### A02: `K01` to `P03` Kind: order. Grounding: codes-read. Strength: fair. In model: true. Mechanism: Reported interference with a new build gives its advocate a reason to explain the intended marks to those who may otherwise restore the old image. Fails if: The explanation addresses another task or the apparent connection rests only on adjacency without words linking the interference to the explanation. Grounding and limit: The horse's removal report precedes the advocate's explicit therefore account of publicising the plan. The king provides another explanation aimed at painters; edit timestamps are not used to date earlier actions. Bound: A reason for attempting explanation, not evidence that explanation reached every painter or resolved every obstacle. Negative check: not-addressed. Failure present in the retained mechanism: not-addressed. Theoretical samples: - `E-10`: A different unfinished image could expose the same recognition problem. holds. The king announcement asks people not to repair the intended build, and PM advice explicitly says the picture is not yet recognisable. - `E-09`: A voted crowns plan could still need public identification. holds. The relayed plan asks people not to remove the crown; the record does not measure everyone receiving it. - `E-14`: Interference could accompany a different, technical obstacle. not testable. PMs and requests not to overwrite occur, but the cancellation gives a palette reason, not a demonstrated test of recognition. `c0702`, qRhBg6YkZPC35/sSCSxMlStdX8o=, hour 68.13388888888889, item `dfrmdw6`, thread `636a8n`, offsets 0:27: > Folk håller på att ta bort. `c0703`, bpRX1cjAPncuHeF3DACQ8OhcGWU=, hour 68.14888888888889, item `dfrmesy`, thread `636a8n`, offsets 0:66: > Därför detta delades till Sweddit så att så många som möjligt ser. `c0451`, 3xUiClN9y7wl1XJl7S7QK2Kwlpw=, hour 52.41388888888889, item `dfqo39e`, thread `62zhrg`, offsets 0:131: > Det kan vara en idé att PM:a folket som målar över med blått. Målningen är så pass oklar att det inte går att se vad/vem det är än. ### A03: `P03` to `P04` Kind: transition. Grounding: reading-alone. Strength: fair. In model: true. Mechanism: Reading marks as an intended addition rather than hostile damage can let a willing maintainer redirect erasure into help; the supported result is a local reported switch. Fails if: A claimed switch is only another speaker's wish, the actor deliberately opposed the recognised design, or the same actor endorses it yet continues the same erasure. Grounding and limit: Read the horse's plan-spreading exchange with the same contributor's before/now statement, then compared king admissions and the Arch decision/removal contrast. The exact message that changed 3bfpkAVUXTH6WuKOgZcSzmKKny8='s understanding is unobserved. Bound: Requires a willing actor's explicit before/now report; recognition alone does not settle the priority or legitimacy of the design (K03). Negative check: counterexample. Failure present in the retained mechanism: not-addressed. Theoretical samples: - `E-10`: Test the mechanism on the unfinished king rather than the horse. not testable. An actor admits deleting after explanations, but does not explicitly state a new contribution. This supports recognition, not a second demonstrated switch. - `E-08`: A prior decision could coexist with continuing destruction, threatening an approval-to-compliance account. fails. The speaker reports a decision to spare Arch while others still erase it, and a separate removal demand remains explicit. Counterexample response: A blanket move from approved plan to common cooperation would turn dissent and unequal recognition into mere delay. The horse's placement objection and king-priority complaint may remain deliberate. Retain only the local recognition-and-redirection reading supported by the actor's self-report; do not infer a general change of mind or attribute the effect to a particular unseen message. The reported switch may follow other information or a new preference. It is not independent observation of pixels. The counterexample defeats an approval-to-consensus reading; whether the retained willing-actor mechanism failed is not measured. `c0709`, 3bfpkAVUXTH6WuKOgZcSzmKKny8=, hour 68.29, item `dfrmo45`, thread `636a8n`, offsets 0:57: > Började bygga blått på det där, hjälper till nu istället! `c0707`, jBxn5i/9r6ll6579BJdEHZiVWk8=, hour 68.24416666666667, item `dfrml2m`, thread `636a8n`, offsets 0:98: > Det blir ju inget kvar av flagga när ni kletar ner den såhär. Sätt hästen långt år höger istället. `c0403`, Nlzw0ThHIF9eYbznE3vrZZTQlUc=, hour 43.617777777777775, item `dfq3xw4`, thread `62z3fy`, offsets 0:123: > We have already decided that we should let your logo be, but unfortunately some people keep trying to remove it. I'm sorry. ### A04: `P05` to `P06` Kind: order. Grounding: codes-read. Strength: fair. In model: true. Mechanism: An accommodation bargain specifies the help a partner can promise or report as owed to that relationship, providing a stated basis for reciprocal upkeep. Fails if: The alleged response is unrelated to the accommodation, rejects the obligation, or contains neither an acceptance nor a report of the named help. Grounding and limit: Maryland's stated protection-for-repair arrangement is followed by the pledge and ongoing repair report in the same thread. Madotsuki explicitly reports repair conditional on the protected image remaining untouched. Germany accepts reciprocal attack work, not this protection-to-upkeep relation. Bound: Commitments and participant reports only; neither accepted terms nor later thanks verify actual pixels, universal compliance or the bargain's unique causal effect. Reciprocal attack commitments do not meet the protection/upkeep scope. Negative check: not-addressed. Failure present in the retained mechanism: not-addressed. Theoretical samples: - `E-13`: A separate bilateral bargain could fail to obtain even an acceptance. not testable. The accepted exchange concerns reciprocal attack work, not accommodation/protection in exchange for upkeep. It is a contrast in reciprocal commitments, not corroboration of A04. - `E-12`: A smaller protected image could report reciprocal work without the Maryland night arrangement. holds. The speaker explicitly conditions current flag repair on the protected image remaining untouched. - `E-17`: Reported accommodation could fail to secure durable restraint. not testable. A rebuild plan and renewed destruction pleas coexist, but no linked accepted repair-for-protection bargain is established there. `c0588`, fPYLXGntqtV9TX/gkL2GpUdrrsE=, hour 54.550555555555555, item `dfqty7u`, thread `631vz6`, offsets 0:220: > We needed some loyal allies from their timezone to help us repair when we are asleep, so we let the Maryland flag stay on ours for protection if they help repair our flag. > > A nice bunch over at r/Maryland, I must say :) `c0589`, +43IMXXoPoJtcQFa6bfYrbGTbrY=, hour 54.75333333333333, item `dfquj36`, thread `631vz6`, offsets 0:110: > Reporting from r/Maryland here- will devote my pixels to defending r/Sweden during the dark hours! Sverige !!! `c0590`, RqPmq/uPcJMKMluLtqthUB2UZ9I=, hour 60.431111111111115, item `dfraz7m`, thread `631vz6`, offsets 0:161: > I've been placing my pixel every 5 minutes nonstop for the last few hours to clean up the Swedish flag right now. Gotta keep the Maryland-Sweden alliance strong. ### A05: `K02` to `P09` Kind: transition. Grounding: codes-read. Strength: thin. In model: true. Mechanism: The author's judgement that the available palette cannot realise the proposed drawing supplies their stated reason to abandon that undertaking. Fails if: Cancellation is inferred only from silence, the reason belongs to another drawing, or the author explicitly continues the same task despite that supposed final decision. Grounding and limit: The author explicitly links the wrong colour count, inability to make the drawing look right and cancellation in an edit. No timestamp orders that edit against later replies. Bound: An attributed reason in one edited cancellation; its timing and the independent causal weight of labour scarcity remain unresolved. Negative check: not-addressed. Failure present in the retained mechanism: not-addressed. Theoretical samples: - `E-04`: Another ambitious portrait attempt could end for the same technical reason. not testable. The observed edge has no explicit cancellation or stated palette failure. - `E-10`: A later black-and-white image could turn a colour issue into continuation. not testable. A preference for colour coexists with help on the black-and-white version; it is not the same declared unusability condition. `c0436`, ut241QgoFq54FMpzwUgOcT3v/Pc=, hour 45.38388888888889, item `dfq6cku`, thread `62zhrg`, offsets 145:301: > Jag gjorde fel på ritningen med antalet färger. Kan inte få det snyggt med dom färger som finns. Lika bra att avbryta. Förlåt alla, misslyckades totalt här. `c0440`, QQfOJq9d6EKUOM9CbNLKPFvmYuA=, hour 45.62277777777778, item `dfq6qxx`, thread `62zhrg`, offsets 283:427: > Generell städning från attacker, tre kronor i övre hörnet, expansion åt öster, krig i söder. Vi borde göra en sak i taget, inte allt på en gång. ### A06: `P07` to `P04` Kind: transition. Grounding: reading-alone. Strength: thin. In model: false. Mechanism: Moving discussion to a planning venue would expose a painter to instructions that change their contribution. Fails if: The routed person only promises to repost, never reports changed drawing, or explicitly lacks access to the venue. Grounding and limit: Looked for a routing instruction linked to an actor's changed pixel work; accepted reposting and ignorance of the venue do not supply that instance. Bound: No demonstrated route-to-pixel instance. Excluded from the empirical model. Negative check: not-addressed. Failure present in the retained mechanism: not-addressed. Theoretical samples: - `E-11`: Includes explicit acceptance and ignorance rather than only repeated templates. not testable. A promise to repost and a statement of not knowing the venue do not show subsequent pixel work. - `E-16`: Routing and a local switch occur in the same dispute, so an inflated causal claim is tempting. not testable. Different speakers perform the referral and switch; the record does not identify the route that changed the actor's understanding. `c0627`, AKk7RTbS8yf1ct/Xy1qPk/BHOaA=, hour 62.039722222222224, item `dfre451`, thread `634ytc`, offsets 0:46: > Oh, I shall repost this there and delete this! `c0597`, rBs6pwLHzGWdKIx+eCtyM+df41A=, hour 55.26777777777778, item `dfqvzyt`, thread `632moh`, offsets 0:72: > Jo hade jag bara vetat om att det fanns så hade jag kunnat utnyttja det. ## Dimension projection `D01` concerns what work to undertake and how contributions can fit it. Its retained internal relations are `A01`, `A02`, `A03` and `A05`; its incoming relation is `A04`; it has no outgoing retained relation in this candidate. `D02` concerns who may act or direct discussion where. It has outgoing `A04` and no retained incoming or internal arrow. These are structural connection sets, not code mass or a rate of conduct. Assignments have no additional placements, so the sets with and without doubles are identical. The projection from `D02` to `D01` is restricted to `A04`: a claimed permission/protection exchange names help that a party can promise or report. It fails as a dimension-level mechanism where rights or routing are discussed without any stated help obligation or linked response. The strongest lower instance is the Maryland terms, pledge and report quoted above. The routing process does not abstract into that mechanism; its projection is an ungrounded possibility, not a second dimension arrow. `P10` adds a different way the jurisdiction question enters the case: claims to permission, kindness or an imposed boundary. No observed permission-to-compliance effect is supplied merely by naming that process. Without in-arrows, the jurisdiction dimension describes a source of conditions on these local tasks; the graph alone does not establish that every undertaking requires permission. The task-direction side does not have a retained path to the ungrouped accounting process, and I do not invent one to connect the diagram. ## Dynamics and the irreversible boundary The empirical view has `P01` to `P02` (`A01`), `K01` to `P03` (`A02`), `P03` to `P04` (`A03`), `P05` to `P06` (`A04`), and `K02` to `P09` (`A05`). The speculative view adds `P07` to `P04` (`A06`); removing it leaves the empirical view unchanged in its reported local changes and commitments. `P08` accounts for outcomes and disputed relationships without a forced incoming causal arrow. `P10` names the contested permission acts that the reciprocal process missed; neither a threat nor a grant gives it a demonstrated enforcement arrow. No grounded loop is claimed, and model/loops.jsonl is empty. The king and horse show repeated recognition trouble in different undertakings; no dated episode supplies a complete feedback path returning a process to its prior state. A graph cycle or shared vocabulary would not establish one. At hour 73 the placement task becomes unavailable under the supplied clock. New banner or flair work can continue, but it cannot reverse that platform boundary or establish resumed placement. A post-close complaint about a heart is not live evidence on its posting time. ## Comparison and coding-artifact challenges The rival settled-off-platform-plan account wins the origin claim for reported votes and an already approved horse plan. Its strongest source is `c0718`, item `dfro8ll`, in `636a8n`: the advocate says they only spread the approved plan to Sweddit to get people cooperating. The full source was read after the counter-reading search. It does not show stable accepted control of every task. A single coordination construct would also conceal why a technically correct contribution can remain unwelcome, why a recognised drawing can lose priority, and why a feasible-looking undertaking is explicitly cancelled. For `A01`, a coder may have chosen the timed call and an enthusiastic reply because they made a neat sequence. The source hours and a reply promising an alarm preserve the small call-response claim; they do not support an attendance or victory effect. The unresponded two-team proposal tests the latter limit without treating missing uptake as failure. The artifact argument for `A03` is that a coder selected apologies around a vivid success story and the analyst supplied the mechanism. The same speaker's before/now contribution statement is stronger than adjacency, while the king admission lacking a new act and continued Arch removal prevent turning the whole collection into successful persuasion. The precise informational trigger is still unobserved, so the relation remains fair and bounded. For `A04`, alliance-friendly coding might over-select promises and later thanks. The explicit if-help terms, actual pledge and current-work report distinguish the claimed obligation from a decorative friendship word. Harmed-neighbour accounts and continuing removal prevent extending the result to universal compliance or verified protection. The critic correctly removed Germany's reciprocal attack acceptance as corroboration. Maryland and conditional Madotsuki repair remain; the record cannot estimate what repair would have occurred without the bargain. ## ungrounded relationships `A06`, venue routing to changed pixel work, is theorised and excluded. Accepted reposting does not provide its downstream instance. A second expectation, gratitude generating the new flair or banner task, has an observed sequence but no supported causal link; it has no arrow. So does the tempting story that clarification completed the king or horse. No completion report identifies a clarification as its sufficient cause, and the horse has no final coded resolution. ## looked-for-and-not-found The search for stable command and universal compliance did not establish them in the served coded record. This is a weak absence, limited to this room's text, the named literal approval/command queries and inspected sources; it does not rule out unseen Discord or private control. The positive contrary result is reported approval and votes, not an absence of decisions. I also looked for a full dated feedback cycle, independently verified reciprocal repairs, and a route from a moderator referral to a painter's changed contribution. None is grounded here. These are weak absences or unmeasured states, not proof that the processes never occurred. Early portrait planning and the one-turn attack proposals end observationally; they are not demonstrated failures. The palette edit supplies a reason for a specific cancellation but no exact cancellation time. ## Used and unused material All five higher themes inform the candidate through the named processes. The original coder themes remain split and none is omitted as a whole; ordinary context and unresolved quoted fragments stay outside the higher tier as recorded at R3. The form observations about compact calls, register and uneven recognition remain turn-level prose in form_pass.md, never counted or added to the JSONL tiers. I dropped the proposed universal commander role because invocation of a commander is not evidence of an office; a generic alliance role would add a name without an additional mechanism. The model needs neither a common national goal settled for all time nor a new concept declared novel before R5. Pass 2 adds `P10` because the complete pass-1 story test could not narrate nonreciprocal permission claims through `P05`. The added distinction is supported by the existing `T4-002` members; no higher gate, member or code placement changes. `F-001`, `F-002` and `F-003` retain their scopes; `F-004` records the finer distinction. Permission does not become effective control through this revision. ## Critic corrections and pass comparison The accepted critic identified two errors in supporting instances. The launch's `c0004` and `c0005` are one speaker's proposal and instruction in `62mukf`, not a volunteer response. They remain evidence for the elements but not for `A01`. The timed call and alarm promise retain the latter's bounded order. A template question is likewise not a commitment; the later grid-guide statement supplies the early king comparison's resource. Germany's `c0178` and `c0179` specify and accept reciprocal attack work in `62sks4`. They remain narratable as solicited prospective contributions, but do not instantiate accommodation/protection or upkeep. `P05` and `P06` drop those evidence entries; `A04` marks `E-13` not testable for its narrower mechanism. `F-002@R4#2` supersedes the overinclusive finding evidence. Neither correction supplies a new causal relation or changes a higher-theme gate. Pass 3 is preferred over pass 2 by the original criterion because it removes unsupported warrants while keeping the permission distinction and the same episode census.