RM-008101
If other-oriented motive is real and only the transfer picture is the error, the title denies the phenomenon the page preserves. The institutional claim is that one collapsed word misdirects allocation. The page does not say whether using "altruism" for a cash-transfer grant is already that error, or only inferring parenting-like sacrifice from it.
scope_challenge · title_scope, word_use_at_allocation
RM-008102
Local-first ranking is justified by information and feedback, not by dropping the transfer picture. A reader who accepts the five layers can still rank a well-studied cash transfer first if recipient gains dominate donor-side costs. The ontology recode and the allocation recode are two claims.
causal_identification · ranking_independence, ontology_payload
RM-008103
"Full accounting requires both sides" and "unmeasured is not zero" do not specify a donor-side quantity that could reverse a recipient-side trial the page accepts. If the missing cost is local maintenance forgone, the comparison assumes the Section IX stack.
evidence_burden · donor_ledger, giveDirectly_comparison
RM-008104
The page forbids reading fitness-cost altruism as a moral claim about atomistic selves, then uses worker-bee sting and liver-cell toxin processing as the model for parenting and neighborhood contribution. That applies colony-level "maintenance not sacrifice" vocabulary to human helping — the cross-level inference Section IV says biology does not license, in the other direction.
self_application · analog_direction, human_unit_of_analysis
RM-008105
Maintenance is host-relative. The page grants that abusive systems maintain themselves. The priority stack still ranks by information and feedback. Information richness does not identify the host, so a well-informed extractive local system can outrank distant need on the stack while failing the host-relative evaluation the page already named.
scope_challenge · stack_inputs, host_identification
RM-008106
Sidgwick and Parfit are invoked to keep sacrifice-language for motivation while reserving mechanism-level truth for designers. The page is public and tells everyone the mechanism. If stating the theory crowds out intrinsic motivation, publishing it is the demotivation Section X warns about. If it does not, the audience split is unnecessary. The table-and-coffee analogy does not split the audience the way Government House does.
self_application · audience_split, government_house_work