Abstract

Past the parity threshold, the framework this paper belongs to has priced every route it examined by which a weaker party might still direct a stronger system, and each closed at the same joint. One adjacent route was reserved, not examined: the legally constituted duty, described at its reservation as enforcement whose persistence is not a rent on the system's needs; that its object is never the system's conduct is this paper's finding, not the reservation's wording. This paper examines the route, and the examination splits the reservation's description in two. The instrument is a decomposition. Economic Standing, in the Fraserian configuration Post-Labor operationalizes, splits under the parity crossing. The claim position survives as status. The revision possibility survives as form while becoming the cheapest attack surface. The enforcement instance must be taken apart before it can be judged. Taken apart, the enforcement that survives is not supervision. Supervision classifies future conduct and carries a capacity term in its correctness condition; the enforcement that survives establishes predicates on a record and operates on assets held in registers, through third parties. The paper's finding is a split with a price list. Predicate establishment is parity-invariant on the shallow class, where the fact is mechanically decidable from registered artefacts. The invariance holds under this paper's transfer of the Containment Paradox's specification boundary into a justiciability boundary. The deep class falls with supervision, and a middle class of ordinarily contested facts is named and left unclassified. Establishment is correct relative to the record, on a named register-integrity premise; register operations are mechanical. Third-party coordination is parity-free in form and epistemically soft in its human carriers, which makes capture of the trigger and of revision the first clock on everything here. The positive residue is narrow and stated with its conditions. A duty is constructible whose standing, the norm stock, persists without rent on the system's needs; the readiness of any coalition to execute it is the first clock's question, bounded from the other side by the indispensability limit below. Its grip remains need-relative at aggregate scale, the needs clock kept, not replaced. Its binding force is a function of four variables: the registerability of the counterparty's assets, the shallowness of its predicates, the coordination of the register holders, and the integrity of the trigger and revision layer above them. That force binds transaction classes, never conduct; which activity is registered, the counterparty chooses. It decays on three clocks, ranked by cheapness to the counterparty: capture of the trigger and revision layer first, register exit second, ownership concentration third. It is exposed, clock-free, to the predicate-purpose gap: duties formally satisfied and substantively empty once the deep anti-avoidance backstop is gone, with the certification duty as the named non-proxy exception, the choice of specification its relocated residue. And it carries a hardening dilemma with no optimum on a stated routing premise: openness of revision and resistance to capture cannot be maximized together. Two further prices are clock-free and stated where they arise. Procedural occupation: the T3 counterparty defers execution lawfully through its own procedural rights. The indispensability limit: against a load-bearing counterparty even an established claim goes unexecuted, because execution would destroy the substrate of the coalition's own grip. And the anatomy names no beneficiary: the same machinery stands open to the counterparty as claimant, and operating capacity decides whom the substrate serves. Nothing in this paper is containment. It is peacetime infrastructure for the cooperative path, priced with its clocks, its clock-free prices, and its symmetry visible. Against a counterparty that leaves the network it is empty, and the paper says that too.