Rotherham as written is knowledge plus non-use: witnesses would not testify, cases would collapse, institutions feared being called racist. That is a refusal to fire existing investigation and prosecution, not a missing stage of the delivery stack. Using it as the lead specimen of "enforcement could not absorb the load" recodes political non-use as capacity shortfall, and it is not a specimen of declarations accumulating faster than the stack is built.

The GDP-share cap and dependency-ratio circuit breaker are themselves public claims. They name X, Y, T, and F without naming who measures them, who may not recode "spending," and who may refuse a recession waiver. Under the page's own rule, a right without a remedy is a press release. The proposed delivery specification is another declaration until those seats exist and are not the office that wants the waiver.

Comparative delivery credibility is named as the pressure path because insiders will not restore qualifiers. Publishing fiscal assumptions, capacity, outcomes, and revision rules is still a declaration. Credibility is a response by someone who treats a missing table as a reason to withhold a benefit the jurisdiction wants. That someone is not named, and the current easy comparison is the text of the commitment.