What four webinars actually said

the community's default is Recommend; demonstrated, bounded, stoppable, ledgered action moves it one step — to approval-gated action, not autonomy. The ladder's load-bearing rung is Act with approval, and it is earned by showing the controls, not by asserting them.

approval is the community's currency, but the stop was systematically under-priced until the room saw a storm. The framework must price the stop explicitly (P4-B) — and the evidence says demonstration, not exhortation, is what re-prices it.

the Decision Rights Matrix's "Act (bounded)" column is really a reversibility column. Envelope anatomy (scope, magnitude caps, rate limits, reversibility window, owner, expiry) is what the community is actually pricing.

wherever the framework must choose a mechanism, choose the recording mechanism: named, dated, signed, auditable. The community endorses accountability artefacts more strongly than access rights, oversight declarations, or process promises. (A consistent reading, offered as interpretation: W2's principle — strong content, no ledger clause — landed mid-pack at 3.76.)

the framework's envelope section can ship a worked example with a community-sourced default rather than a blank. Status: draft parameter for validation in cycles (OQ2 in the open-questions register), not a recommendation yet.

P3-A (only a named human sets and re-signs the weights) is evidenced not by what the room endorsed (3.73) but by what it did: refusing default weights 85%, rejecting the optimiser's silent trade 64%, and reporting that in most organisations the weights and the check have no named owner. The matrix rows for prioritisation/valuation must carry the named-accountability column as their load-bearing cell.

the framework's job is to close an is/ought gap the community itself measured. That is the "getting started → maturing" path's evidence base ([W5B] §7.1, §7.6): most member organisations are at the left edge (no auto-creation, no drilled stop, unwritten weights), while their practitioners already demand the right-edge controls. Both facts are in the data; the framework must serve both.

the framework's human-role set (define purpose · validate evidence · approve the decision · own the value judgement · accept & record residual risk · hold stop authority · override · interpret context · govern the knowledge · remain accountable by name) is fully evidenced across four rooms — with measured guidance on which rights need defending in the text (the ones rooms under-price cold: stop, risk acceptance, context) versus which defend themselves (approval, validation).