Article 13 is rated the one unconditionally functional article as exit rights, but clause 2 is two rights: leave, and return to one's country. Return is a right to enter a named state. The annotation glues them as "exit/return" and then denies a right to enter other nations, so the functional rating is scoring two machines as one.

Return requires a nationality provider. Article 15 on the same page is a right to a nationality with no state assigned to grant it. If the functional rating was for exit-and-return as one object, Article 13 borrows a provider the page already said does not exist. If it was only for leave, the one-of-thirty stands and "exit/return" should be written as leave.

The broken bucket mixes two objects. Articles 22 and 25 contain limiters the page says later readers dropped; Article 14 has a limiter and is only conditional. The ignored-qualifiers line notes overlap and does not say whether the broken mark scores the 1948 sentence or the later reading.

The sentence order is the defect: expensive claim in the headline, bound in the tail. That is what you write if you want the claim to travel and the bound to die. Later readers dropping the limiter is the predicted result of the 1948 text, not a second document.

Recode 22 and 25 with 14 as limiter-ignored. What remains broken as written is 16, 21, and 28. That is three articles and two mechanisms, not five that actively select against civilizational survival.

If Article 25's limiter actually bound support to circumstances beyond control, 16 plus 25.2 still lets everyone found a family and gives every child the same protection with no parental duty to provision. If that pair still selects against capability, the broken mark survives the limiter. If it does not, 25 is the same object as 14.

Article 28 is rated broken as entitlement to an order that must be built. The thesis is that most articles depend on a functioning economy, honest courts, and a cohesive society. 28's own sentence names an order in which the rights can be realized. The broken mark is working only on "entitled"; the rest of the sentence is the page's premise.

The UN sentence has both "entitled" and "in which ... realized." If the dependence clause is load-bearing, calling 28 delusional fights the thesis. If "entitled" is load-bearing, the broken mark holds. A count of five broken articles cannot use 28 until that pick is stated.

Article 21 is rated broken as the political mechanism for fiscal collapse regardless of what other articles say. The same page gives 16+25 a separate package and 22 an unfunded social-security claim. If 21 does the collapse without those, 22-26 are not part of that story. If they are what voters then vote themselves, 21 is not independently the collapse mechanism.

Article 21's broken mark contains two complaints: competence (belonging is not a right to govern) and the consumer/contributor ratchet. The competence complaint does not need 22-26. The fiscal half may. Without 22-26, 21 either still gets ✗ on franchise-as-right alone, or "regardless" should come out.