Abstract

Institutions and practices of reason-giving can remain answerable to several forums, roles, and standards at once. Debates over multiple accountability commonly ask how many forums exist and whether their demands conflict. That contrast is too coarse. Several demands may be distinct yet independent, semantically coupled, jointly unresolvable, or jointly reachable without a determinate way of comparing resolutions. Plurality is therefore neither unity repeated nor disorder multiplied. The question is how role-indexed demands are organized. We call a role-indexed place at which an answer remains owed a site and an admissible response to it a filling. Polynomial boundaries represent which sites remain open, while categories of fillings represent how answers may be combined, compared, and repaired. This architecture separates four questions often run together: whether several sites genuinely persist; whether local fillings assemble into a governed whole; whether such assembly is obstructed; and what survives repeated repair. The positive results show that universal organization need not erase plurality: local resolutions can assemble while their sites remain visibly distinct, including across changing contexts. The countermodels then distinguish two failures. Some plural profiles lack even a common resolution; others admit common resolutions but no unique public comparison among them. When failure first appears only at the full profile, its essential arity identifies the minimum relational scale of a successful reform. Success at every site separately, or at every smaller coalition of sites, therefore does not establish governance of the whole. Finally, obstruction need not leave disorder. If repair preserves the profile, remains linked to admissible fillings, and covers the relevant continuations, it can stabilize a plural locus of responses. A surviving role symmetry can prevent that locus from being replaced without loss by a single constitutive point; where no state is neutral under the role action, it also blocks neutral selection of a master standpoint. The result is a practice-relative transcendental claim: if the framework adequately individuates a practice and exhausts its continuations, the retained plural structure is necessary for that practice to continue as itself. This is a structural, pre-legitimacy conclusion. The GDPR case illustrates legally distinct but coupled accountability sites; judgments about standing, power, sanction, and rightful rule remain additional normative work.