The page denies that the five profiles are a ladder, then diagnoses reform failure as selling one grade higher, drifting down a grade, and naming N+1 while delivering N. Those diagnoses reimport an ordered scalar. Missing automaticity is not the same failure as missing a public audience.

The five names are a comparison shorthand for spotting a mismatch; the ten knobs are what you open when writing the mechanism. "One grade higher" means the rhetoric named a verb the mechanism does not compel, not that the five are ontology.

The closing diagnostic still classifies channels by five verbs. Two channels can both compel a reasoned answer in a record and differ on money, deadlines, and reversibility. The five call both procedural, so the design question is which knob is missing. The page does not say when to put the field guide down.

Ignore-cost can stack across audiences without any one channel gaining the power to reverse a budget. Treating grade as a property of a single channel makes "opening a new advisory channel adds noise" true of each channel and silent about composed ignore-cost.

Stacked reputational audiences still do not reverse an appropriation or remove an official. Extra advisory channels remain noise if the missing piece is a trigger that fires without a new decision. The warning is about that jump.

If a later reviewer treats piled-up explanations as the record they judge, the stack became a reasoned-answer duty none of the channels wrote into their own rules. Grade can rise without a new verb on any one channel, so the more-channels claim can be true of each channel and false of the architecture they form.

The useful split is whether a new channel adds someone who newly pays for non-response, or another copy of the same audience. Two more portals to the same office are noise. A portal plus a budget score plus a court that can send the decision back is not more of the same. The diagnostic never asks who the extra channel makes pay.

Repair-or-override is the clean procedural match because the choice is forced, but override is always available. A one-line disagreement completes the procedure the way a formulaic explanation completes comply-or-explain. The page's own decay story — once people know the explanation is the whole consequence, it becomes boilerplate — then applies to the recommended mechanism unless override costs something the explanation did not.

What repair-or-override adds is that you cannot ignore the diagnostic: a forced form, not a cost on picking override. After the sentence is on the record, electoral citation is the reputational overhang comply-or-explain already claimed. If override does not change legal or fiscal state, the recommended mechanism is reputational with a required sentence.

The cost of naming a stronger profile than you install is that actors learn the gap and the channel slides toward advisory. The worked examples are snapshot grades — UK Code reputational, Stability and Growth Pact below paper sanctions, GDPR patchy — not before-and-after trajectories showing a fall caused by learning the gap.

Hold the UK Corporate Governance Code fixed. Decay would be explanations that used to move investor votes now treated as boilerplate with no market response. Stable reputational force would be the same explanations still moving capital or AGM votes. Without that pair, the warning is a direction, not a showing that naming the higher profile caused a slide.