Part IV — What the design does to a person, and how it catches itself
25. Voiding
Bela's effective credibility finding restricts a particular use of public power. Standing, the floor, movement, the ballot and public answerability remain. A person with an effective credibility finding cannot qualify a new adverse finding against somebody else. None of this establishes that every statement Bela makes is false.
The distinction is between a finding about an identified act and a judgment about a person's worth. The finding has a ground, a case, people responsible for it and a way to contest it. The person keeps their rights.
The paired finding
Gia and Hex are the examiners; Bela is the subject of their finding. Gia's credential comes through Electorate and Hex's through Convocation. Both identify the same incident, adverse ground and evidence. Each has an independence finding for that case. Their records also affirm that notice, access to the evidence, a hearing and reasons were provided. The completed judgment includes independently witnessed evidence of their eligibility when they made it and of its place before the current evaluation. Bela's void follows from that completed case.
Permission to make a finding is a separate question. Two currently eligible reviewers can qualify a proposed finding; that permission does not itself record a completed judgment or impose a penalty. Their subsequent act must have its own completed record. This separation lets the rule ask whether a reviewer may act now without treating a later disqualification as proof that every lawful earlier act was invalid.
The ground must name deceit, a fabricated record, a concealed conflict or withheld evidence. A complaint alone is not one of those findings. A separate test starts with a complaint about a subject named Targ4 and examinations by two credentialed reviewers, Nogra and Nogrb. The proposed finding still needs both reviewers' agreement on the actual incident and ground. One affirmation does not suffice. When the second reviewer agrees, the proposal qualifies, but the subject is not yet voided. That consequence follows only when the completed case is also recorded.
Matching a subject and the word deceit is insufficient. The incident and evidence must match too. An independence entry for another case cannot be borrowed, and conflicting descriptions invalidate the record. Represented family relationships with the subject or between the prospective signers also stop the pair. Missing relationship records do not establish independence: each reviewer still needs the affirmative finding for this case.
Two further cases isolate different missing conditions. Koa, the lone examiner, recorded an examination of Esa but supplies neither a judgment nor the required credential; no void follows. In the other case Ambi holds both credentials and proposes a finding against Solo. The other case premises are present, but one person cannot count as two signers. No void follows for Solo. These are separate failures, not successive stages of one case.
Findings against an examiner
Dev is Esa's parent and judges Esa. The relationship prevents Dev from qualifying an adverse finding about Esa. It does not automatically void Dev. A separate finding of concealed conflict needs the same case and process as any other adverse finding.
Another completed case concerns Lupo's deceit of Mira. Lupo is the subject of the adverse finding; Mira is the person deceived. Lupo is voided and Mira is not. A bare allegation, even beside a generic Review judgment naming Lupo, would not supply that case. The accusation cannot do the work of the particular judgment.
That distinction also protects an examiner against an unsupported accusation. The recorded allegation alone does not create a personal finding. That does not establish that the examiner was honest; it establishes what is required before an adverse personal consequence may follow.
What has to cross the record
Tyr is the subject in the carried-history example. The examiners, Vex and Wren, have recorded examinations of Tyr. Vex's matched carried restriction blocks the required appointment, so the pair cannot qualify a new finding. Tyr is not voided. The history must have an identified predecessor, agreed inventories and carry reports, and a selected current constitutional record without a competing selection. A bare mark cannot supply it.
That carried restriction concerns the appointment. It is insufficient by itself to create a personal finding. Vex's void rests on the separately recorded prior case, which Vex can challenge. Neither conclusion cancels ordinary contributions or confers a recognition status.
Current disqualification matters as well. The next test gives Lupo an appointment and witnessed clearance from the prior record, while retaining the effective finding for deceiving Mira. Lupo now appears as a proposed examiner, paired with a second examiner named Partnr, in a case against Frisk. The pair cannot qualify that new finding: Lupo's earlier clearance does not override the current judgment. A carried restriction, when present, independently blocks the appointment route.
The historical and current questions have different dates. A completed judgment needs evidence of eligibility when it was made. A proposed judgment needs eligibility now. Neither an old appointment nor an old clearance answers both questions.
The way back, and who has to answer
Restoration names the particular finding and its subject. It requires the specific appellate act and its independent review, their purpose, evidence and procedure, and the eligibility and witnessed order belonging to that act. The decision-maker and reviewer must be distinct, and neither may be the subject. An independent alternate can act under the same case requirements when the ordinary body is a party. A generic judgment and a forgiveness flag restore nothing.
Purga is the subject of the restoration test. A completed adverse case remains in the record alongside qualified appellate restoration, and no effective personal finding follows. The history need not be erased to end its consequence. A separate sequence returns to Dev, the parent who examined Esa: a completed concealed-conflict finding can be restored while Dev's family relationship and examination remain recorded.
Renaming the restored finding does not revive it. Restoration follows the same subject, incident and ground across record names. A distinct incident or ground is assessed separately; one restoration is not permanent immunity from another finding. Ending the personal finding also does not automatically restore a recalled or carried-void public appointment. No automatic expiry ends a finding merely because nobody reviews it.
Every target of an effective finding is owed an explanation by Review and an independent review of the continuing restriction by Appeals, without having to ask. A separate subject, Targo, has a completed finding but no personhood entry. The explanation duty still derives. The subject's own challenge creates an Appeals duty without either signer's permission or a prior merits finding. That test returns to Bela: Bela's challenge opens the route while the finding continues. None of these duties proves that reasons were delivered or a review occurred.
What it costs
The conditions identify who acted, in which case, on which evidence and with which authority. They cannot establish that the reported evidence was true or that the people behind the signatures were independent. Compromised reviewers and historical witnesses can agree on false accounts. The legal requirements remain; their fulfilment must be established outside the calculation.
Positive case requirements also mean that incomplete records cannot establish the adverse authority. A missing clearance prevents an appointment from qualifying. A missing incident, matching finding or required historical observation prevents the personal consequence. That does not establish that no wrongdoing occurred; it places the burden on the proposed use of power.
The record comparison has its own boundary. A fact deleted before the first attested record leaves no predecessor for that comparison, and no rule makes a successor arrive. Conclusions belong to the selected current record. A stale answer must not be treated as permission to act in a changed situation.
The child with nobody
Nell is not voided in this chapter's supplied child case. Every floor debt derives, while recognition and recognition loss do not. The test does not record a completed void of Nell or prove that no false accusation could reach the child.
The floor rules depend on personhood, not credibility. Bela's voided case separately retains personhood, food debt, movement and the ballot. An adverse finding cannot make the floor a reward for being believed. Explanation, representation and independent review remain necessary when a child is affected by a finding.
The next chapter follows the limits of the finding: what can be corrected, what remains owed and what must happen for the restriction to end.