Does the hedge-versus-bedrock contrast survive once preferring that anything persist is admitted as a wager?

Is "bedrock" naming the filter, or naming the preference that the filter keep selecting?

If the filter is real and the preference is a wager, should the thesis drop "bedrock" and lead with the bet?

Can instrumental convergence be applied to a population that is not a unified goal-pursuing agent?

Is the hop a design requirement (the bill, if you want anything else) or a finding (civilizations converge)?

Is "will collapse" a finding about this civilization, or a statement of what would be needed to last?

Does a persistence-satisfying lock-in count as solving the constraints, or do the constraints already include non-lock-in?

Holding viatopia fixed, does taking the physics step change the selected civilizational architecture?

Is the last step a different selector, or a claim that physics talk survives QALY pressure better than a hedge?

Is there a stock that has to stay above a line even when the QALY math says spend it?

Is "processing nodes" a constraint that blocks the gulag pattern, or a description of why individuals are useful to the system?

Does physics rule people-eating systems out on any timescale this argument can use, or is that work still done by the individualist firewall?

Is the last step a foundation change, or an empirical claim about the S×F cross-term?