Section V's table scores replicator properties as High / Low / Catastrophic without a comparison across countries, years, or packages. A property list is not a showing that electorally winning packages eat the society that carries them.

Systematic divergence is argued from three timing problems (cycle-length benefits, foggy failure, failed policies that do not die). Swedish rent control is the extinction-failure case. The table is those problems drawn as rows, not a regression.

Swedish rent control is a statute. "Low cognitive load" is a property of a slogan. A housing law that will not die does not score identity-fusion campaigns as civilizationally Low. The table is a caption for the timing problems, and those are a caption for one policy.

One live value-package must be scored on both columns: an electoral number and a society number that can move the other way. Hypothetical packages: house prices must not fall; pensions are untouchable. Without both numbers, High and Catastrophic are adjectives.

The society column has to be allowed to come out High. If every travelling package is scored Low because travelling means simple, and simple models fail, the table cannot lose. A High/High row is what would break the systematic claim.

The egalitarian ratchet is a direction claim (majority-below-the-top, one way only), not a table of slogan-properties, and not the three timing problems. Those can chew any policy. The ratchet is a different mechanism.

Hypothetical: a government cuts a benefit, tightens eligibility, or stops an equalization step. If that counts, "one direction" is false. If it does not, "egalitarian" means the steps that stuck. The remaining gap is that reverse-rule, not the two-column score.

The three timing problems do not close either leftover: one package scored on two columns, including possible High/High, or a reverse-rule for the ratchet. Legislative survival asymmetries can be granted without electoral-versus-civilizational fitness for values.

The bird study is used as a cognitive bug and then as maybe tracking "is there a systemic problem?" A flat ~$80 across a thousand-fold range does not distinguish healthy, stressed, threatened, or collapsing. It is a prototype reaction, not a categorical system diagnosis.

The load-bearing move is that the survey question was already the wrong unit: you cannot get a price for a system-level thing. The flat $80 is what a scalar question produces. That does not make the $80 evidence that people were tracking the system.

To show people track population viability you need that question, and some sign they answer it well. The page does not ask it. The study can carry instrument-failure, not the generous reading.

A ballot authorizes a package and a government; it is not a willingness-to-pay item. Section III says civilizational goods do not decompose into individual preference units. Section VII then wants constitutions, automatic fiscal rules, and an audit body. If the goods do not decompose, those machines have nothing to read.

The cells-vote-on-organ-function line smuggles incapacity. Cells do not write organ rules; citizens do write constitutions and one-shot constraints. The rest of the page is bias (packages that travel, short cycles), not inability of the lower level to specify the higher.

If the load-bearing claim is selection pressure, voting can remain the unit and still need counterweights. If it is unit-of-analysis incapacity, the bird study and the cell metaphor have to carry more than they do. The section argues incapacity with evidence of bias.

If flourishing is expressing deepest commitments, voting for something else is voting against those commitments: a contradiction, not a failure mode. The destructive door opens only if flourishing is specified independently of the ballot commitments. Otherwise the split is "we already know the objective."

The six claim types are the independent specification: only preference reports are for voting; coordination and viability are performance once who-for and over-what-time are picked. People can then vote against viability. That is a real destructive door.

Who the system is for, and over what time, are commitments. Picking them is the value choice futarchy was trying to park. Viability can be measured later and the operational boundary still sits on that pick.

The Hanson leftover is the right shape and then reused. Adaptation is a tautology; his sacred metrics are stand-ins that need a criterion. Sustained organized complexity over the longest horizon is another persistence stand-in. Complexity, longest horizon, and "physics" still have to be chosen as the thing not to trade.

Longest horizon can spend the people alive now. Maximum organized complexity can look like a stable high-complexity garden with no remaining agency. If those trades are real, the physics exit is a who-and-when pick. If they are forbidden, "longest" and "complexity" are already moral commitments.

The prototype for not asking whether people want fiscal sustainability is a rule installed once by referendum. That install is a vote on a value. The example supports one-shot versus every-cycle, not preference versus thermodynamics.

The design is to take the domain off continuous aggregation after install. Gravity is not re-litigated every election. Section VIII names the path: crisis, competition, parallel institutions, or hard constraints during constitutional windows. A one-shot vote can still be the wrong tool for the next cycle.

"Don't vote on values" will never win a vote, because it pattern-matches to elitism. The debt brake did win a vote and pattern-matched to prudence. The page's own example is a bind-the-future package that beat continuous preference. The remaining problem is when such a package travels, not that it cannot.

This is a design requirement, not a present physics office. The downstream question is: in one named constitutional window, what would count as complexity-and-horizon winning because it is true rather than because it travelled in that crisis. After-it- persists restores the tautology; a pre-vote number restores the proxies §VI said need a criterion.