Is governance corrigibility "no actor owns the whole path" or "no actor can unilaterally halt a grounded case at a mandatory stage"?

Can case identity accumulate across unpublished, operator-ignored decisions without creating a new agenda monopoly?

Does attributable override remain corrigible if the same defeated mechanism claim can be restated indefinitely without a movement test?

After scoring one named loop against the nine stages, is the actual remainder actuation, or composition of already-working stages across boundaries?

Can a challenger contest "this is a value conflict, not a mechanism contradiction" without relitigating the policy?

Who can lawfully remove a correction stage that has become veto accretion?