Assigning a cross-boundary case owner can transfer accountability without transferring the authority, capacity, or political protection needed to act.

Classification is already an exercise of power; a routing layer that does not record who labelled a claim merely converts social illegibility into procedural illegibility.

Archive selection on successful acquisition cannot estimate the discarded stream's value; a prospective sample of rejected submissions could.

Universal duty to adjudicate is a denial-of-service; typed channels plus anomaly sampling of the rejected stream can calibrate the filter without promising bespoke service.

In the AI-era queue the scarce resource is verification, not drafting; summarization can enlarge the queue while leaving citation and causal checks expensive.

A general evaluator recreates the blind spot at one node; a smaller public router (case identity, accepted referral, reasoned closure, random audit) should precede universal truth-finding.

Compulsory-answer agenda power is itself a scarce resource; the correction authority needs a recursive intake for corrections about itself.

The added claim is the boundary before agenda-setting and nondecision obtain a stable object, not a relabelling of Kingdon plus absorptive capacity.