Challenges and appeals

Use one recorded case per challenge, linked to the exact target and rule. Its scope determines whether it can block a release, contest a payment amount, or only request a correction to records.

The original challenge window need not restart after a rejected challenge when members already had the full required access and the candidate is unchanged. It also must not become shorter because evidence or the endpoint disappeared while the case was open. Record actual qualifying access time.

Before closing the window, reconcile the intake record through its cutoff time. A complete, specific challenge received before that cutoff must receive its C02 disposition before U12 can finish. Give qualification the profile's decision deadline and bounded replacement allowance. A malformed submission or unchanged duplicate receives its mechanical disposition without reopening the window. If a timely substantive case remains unresolved after its permitted assignments, close the candidate attempt. A processing backlog cannot turn an unanswered challenge into consent.

An accepted challenge that changes code, expectations, or release requirements requires the relevant earlier steps again and a renewed opportunity to examine the changed target. Duplicate challenges share the underlying case where appropriate. New substantive evidence remains admissible, including through F5 after a release is live.

The founding eligibility and deadlines appear below and in section 20. Later member rights use the governance amendment procedure. One authenticated reporter can submit a demonstrated serious defect without a second account. The assigned runner checks reproduction and the policy expectation. During founding operation, the published qualification rule below also accepts interpretive submissions. Later membership rules can define additional intervention rights without treating account count as proof of independence.

Founding challenge eligibility

The founding window is open to any authenticated participant. A stable pseudonymous signing identity is sufficient for intake. Neither a token balance nor contribution voting weight is required to submit a factual or interpretive challenge.

C02 checks completeness, target, duplication, and whether the evidence alleges a specific unmet requirement or policy error. A runner verifies reproducible claims. A separately assigned qualified council decides the admissibility of interpretive claims under the founding rule. A bundle does not verify itself, and authentication does not establish its conclusion.

A demonstrated required failure blocks directly. A qualifying interpretive challenge receives its scoped pause and independent task assignment. General disagreement without an identified requirement remains nonblocking discussion. Publish rejection reasons and allow the ordinary appeal of a qualification decision so intake authority cannot quietly suppress every objection.

Bryan appoints the initial qualification and challenge assignments through founding authority. Their rules work before contribution-based membership exists. Replacement after a missed deadline follows the preauthorized recovery rule. If an unresolved blocking question cannot be decided by the allowed assignments, close the candidate attempt without promotion.

The system must demonstrate that these routes can receive, qualify, and decide a real challenge before opening a founding window. Publish notices to the designated public channel and provide the applicable evidence access. Do not require someone to object before a valid window may finish. Low participation still limits the scrutiny the window receives, so baseline tests, coverage examination, and prescribed adversarial work remain required.

Finality and abuse

Use one ordinary appeal with a separate assignment and a decision deadline under the founding profile. Record the initial authorities before enabling blocking challenges. Repeating a rejected argument does not create a new appeal. A new reproducible defect can still enter incident handling.

The challenge decision must identify the disputed claim and the consequence it permits. A payment challenge can reserve a contested amount without pausing an unrelated release. An active defect can block the affected release before its reporter's reward is decided.

Keep contributor deposits and challenge bonds disabled unless governance adopts a specific abuse-control rule. Losing a reasonable challenge does not establish abuse. Any forfeiture or restriction must name the prohibited conduct, evidence, affected permission or money, and appeal route.