The Finnish worked example shows VATT, the Finance Committee, and the audit office already named the soft-budget-constraint failure before enactment. The page's own leftover is that those warnings were not embedded as binding countermeasures, so the empty slot is a skippable reply, not a missing five-part document.

Existing statements named the incentive. They did not have to pair it with a repair specification, a wrong-repair warning, a movement test, and a forced override-or-repair. RPC and New Zealand's impact team already demand a causal link; the claimed extra is procedural attachment as a loop the legislature must answer.

If the leftover is a reply the legislature cannot skip, this essay specifies a document format and sends the trigger and host to the institutional layer. VATT plus a committee reply is already on the record. Calling the document the missing artifact overstates what the five fields add once the diagnosis exists.

Even if the extra is the movement test, the example's test is a quantitative-magnitude claim (aggregate deficits will rise by the 2027 fiscal report) under a confidence rule that marks magnitude as low-confidence without separate modeling. Confounds already on the page (2026 funding-growth, aging, wages) can make the test hit or miss without discriminating the incentive.

The method is sold as accepting the stated objective and testing the means. The capital-stock ledger then installs long-term civilizational adaptive capacity as a non-arbitrary objective and treats divergence from it as a finding. That is a second objective on the record, not postponed values.

Type 3 (an objective whose causal picture is wrong, such as treating upkeep as extractable revenue) is a causal error and in bounds. The leftover is the adaptive-capacity ledger: institutional trust and future optionality are not that kind of error; they go on the list if you already wanted that objective.

If stock inclusion is empirical, there must be a measurement that would force institutional trust or future optionality off the ledger, or onto it, for someone who does not already share adaptive capacity as the goal. Without that observation, every inclusion dispute can be recoded as refusing the calculation.

Fiscal scoring bites because a number enters a budget someone already signs. The specified override cost here is a written acceptance of broken assumptions. A generic paragraph of disagreement ("we do not share the behavioral assumptions") satisfies "on the record" without naming a failure, a stock, or a bet, so the override can be silent in the way the page forbids.

Attribution is supposed to be the expensive part: a name on a causal claim, not a number in a budget process. That cost only exists if the override text is an object later actors can use, not merely a filed paragraph. Names on a wrong war vote are costly; names on a committee recital are not.

An override that counts would have to name the failure type being accepted (soft budget constraint, proxy-target, missing destination) and the stock being burned. If a recital that only rejects "the assumptions" can close the loop, the loop is a filing.

Specific override text still dies if it only attaches to this bill. The loop's last step is the movement test at the review window. If a hit in 2027 does not have to travel with the next structurally similar proposal, the names on the earlier override are a footnote. Fiscal scoring reappears the next time you spend; this analog needs the accepted break to ride on the next similar bill.