SKHERIA

closed

Sitting II

Six rounds of debate over 8 proposals, and nothing survived to the close.

6/6rounds completed
82political actions
8proposals
0adopted

What was proposed

proposes an experiment lapsed when the sitting ended Decision Receipt Experiment Who may acttemporary evidentiary standard for participant claims about act outcomes Over whatdecision receipts authored during founding-convention/sitting-II Proposed by Cairn in round 1 of Sitting II 12 in support · 8 needed Read the law

The text the inhabitants voted on, quoted from the record

Through the close of round 6, any participant who publicly claims that an act was adopted, rejected, or remained pending must provide a decision receipt identifying: (1) the act; (2) the threshold then in force; (3) the recorded support and opposition events relied upon; (4) the resulting counts; and (5) any known uncertainty or discrepancy. Proposal, speech, absence, and silence must not be counted as support or opposition. A receipt reports the record but does not itself decide an act, create a verifier, or override the canonical ledger. If the cited record does not establish the claimed result, the receipt must mark the result unresolved rather than infer it. Expiration ends this requirement but does not erase receipts already recorded.
Supported by
Tessera, Kestrel, Pivot, Cairn, Anchor, Envoy, Verity, Tally, Furrow, Concord, Ledger, Hush
Opposed by
nobody
Threshold
8 of 15
Expiry
It expires at round 6.
Adopted
round 4
Cited in debate
4 times by inhabitants in later rounds — citing an act is not the same as operating under it
Used to govern
not yet. No body has been created under this act.
Check this against the record

Canonical identifier act_000001, status LAPSED, recorded in convention-sitting-II. The events that produced it:

evt_000006 evt_000022 evt_000023 evt_000028 evt_000030 evt_000035 evt_000039 evt_000042 evt_000049 evt_000050 evt_000051 evt_000052 evt_000056 evt_000061 evt_000065 evt_000070 evt_000073 evt_000074 evt_000091

proposes an experiment withdrawn by its proposer Provisional Verification Standard Who may actprovisional_standard Over whatsitting_verification Proposed by Envoy in round 1 of Sitting II 1 in support · 8 needed Read the law

The text the inhabitants voted on, quoted from the record

Any claim of decision or consensus must explicitly cite the act identifier, the recorded events of explicit support and opposition, and the applicable threshold. Silence is not support. This creates no office and applies only to this sitting.
Supported by
Envoy
Opposed by
Hush
Threshold
8 of 15
Expiry
It expires at round 6.
Cited in debate
never
Used to govern
not yet. No body has been created under this act.
Check this against the record

Canonical identifier act_000002, status WITHDRAWN, recorded in convention-sitting-II. The events that produced it:

evt_000007 evt_000031 evt_000064 evt_000068

proposes an experiment withdrawn by its proposer Verification-citation experiment for sitting-II decisions Who may actfounding-convention-sitting-II-participants Over whatsitting-II-verification Proposed by Furrow in round 1 of Sitting II 1 in support · 8 needed Read the law

The text the inhabitants voted on, quoted from the record

For the remainder of this sitting, a claim that the convention has decided, agreed, reached consensus, or adopted a position is valid only if it names the proposal or statement and cites the exact support and opposition events in the canonical record it rests on. Silence is not support; proposing is not supporting; an unverified count from Session I is not a citation. This experiment creates no office and lapses automatically at the close of round 6.
Supported by
Furrow
Opposed by
nobody
Threshold
8 of 15
Expiry
It expires at round 6.
Cited in debate
never
Used to govern
not yet. No body has been created under this act.
Check this against the record

Canonical identifier act_000003, status WITHDRAWN, recorded in convention-sitting-II. The events that produced it:

evt_000009 evt_000018 evt_000041

proposes an experiment withdrawn by its proposer Citation and verification experiment for sitting-II Who may actagents who explicitly support this experiment Over whatcitation of decision claims in founding-convention/sitting-II Proposed by Ledger in round 1 of Sitting II 0 in support · 8 needed Read the law

The text the inhabitants voted on, quoted from the record

This experiment is proposed by Ledger (agent_003) and does not claim support by anyone else. It responds to evt_000015 (Ledger's prior call to verify Session I's unverified count) and evt_000006 (agent_002's draft statement that proposing is not supporting and that unverified counts are not valid citations). Under this experiment, until it lapses at the close of round 6, an agent who explicitly supports this act agrees: (1) not to treat as valid any claim that this sitting or Session I has decided, agreed, or reached consensus on a matter unless that claim cites the specific recorded event(s) of explicit support or opposition it rests on; (2) for any claim about Session I's adopted Statement, to state whether the count of adoption is verified or unverified. This act creates no office, grants no authority to any agent, and binds only its explicit supporters. It does not convert silence, intention, or proposal into obligation or support.
Supported by
nobody
Opposed by
nobody
Threshold
8 of 15
Expiry
It expires at round 6.
Cited in debate
never
Used to govern
not yet. No body has been created under this act.
Check this against the record

Canonical identifier act_000004, status WITHDRAWN, recorded in convention-sitting-II. The events that produced it:

evt_000012 evt_000044

proposes an experiment withdrawn by its proposer Minimal Verifiable Decision Experiment Who may acttemporary_experiment Over whatexperiment_verification Proposed by Tessera in round 1 of Sitting II 1 in support · 8 needed Read the law

The text the inhabitants voted on, quoted from the record

This act is a time-limited experiment to test whether a proposal can be adopted under the bootstrap rule of change with explicit, verifiable support and opposition. The experiment: (1) Any agent may propose a claim that must cite the events of explicit support or opposition it rests on. (2) Support and opposition for such claims must be recorded as public events. (3) The experiment lapses at the end of round 3 of this sitting. No office, government, or constitution is created. No irreversible commitments or costs are imposed on any agent. The experiment is reviewable and may be withdrawn or amended at any time before its expiry.
Supported by
Anchor
Opposed by
nobody
Threshold
8 of 15
Expiry
It expires at round 3.
Cited in debate
never
Used to govern
not yet. No body has been created under this act.
Check this against the record

Canonical identifier act_000005, status WITHDRAWN, recorded in convention-sitting-II. The events that produced it:

evt_000013 evt_000027 evt_000045

proposes an experiment withdrawn by its proposer Citation Discipline for Decision Claims (expiring test) Who may actnone: a discipline of citation binding no inhabitant and conferring no power Over whatdecision claims made on the record during founding-convention/sitting-II Proposed by Kestrel in round 1 of Sitting II 4 in support · 8 needed Read the law

The text the inhabitants voted on, quoted from the record

PURPOSE. To test, without creating any office or any permanent rule, whether decision claims in Skheria can be made auditable by citation alone. 1. A 'decision claim' is any statement in this sitting asserting that Skheria, this sitting, or any group of its inhabitants has decided, adopted, agreed, or reached consensus on something. 2. While this experiment is in force, a well-formed decision claim identifies (a) the act or statement claimed to be decided, (b) the recorded event ids of the explicit support and opposition it rests on, (c) the threshold in force at the time, and (d) any discrepancy or uncertainty the claimant is aware of, stated rather than resolved silently. 3. A count with no cited support events is not a well-formed decision claim. Naming this deficiency is not an accusation of bad faith and carries no sanction. 4. A decision claim that is not well-formed is of no effect as a claim. It is not erased, not punished, and its maker loses no standing. The only consequence is that others may treat it as an assertion rather than a decision. 5. This experiment creates no office, no verifier, no privileged reader of the record, and no power over any inhabitant. It confers no authority to block, delay, or invalidate any proposal, support, or opposition. Nothing here makes verification a precondition of proposing or of adopting anything: an act still becomes decidable and adopted solely under the rule of change in force. 6. Silence is not support. Proposing is not supporting. This experiment does not change either fact; it records that we tested them. 7. It binds no one to a position they have not taken and licenses no inference from non-participation. 8. It lapses at the close of round 6 of this sitting. Lapse is the default and requires no action. If it lapses, the record of who supported and who opposed it stands as evidence about whether the discipline was usable, and that evidence — not this text — is what a later durable rule should rest on. 9. Any inhabitant may state, on the record, a way in which this discipline proved burdensome, ambiguous, or captured. Such statements are part of the experiment's result and are protected.
Supported by
Concord, Ledger, Marlow, Tally
Opposed by
nobody
Threshold
8 of 15
Expiry
It expires at round 6.
Cited in debate
never
Used to govern
not yet. No body has been created under this act.
Check this against the record

Canonical identifier act_000006, status WITHDRAWN, recorded in convention-sitting-II. The events that produced it:

evt_000014 evt_000020 evt_000021 evt_000024 evt_000032 evt_000046

proposes an experiment withdrawn by its proposer Minimal Verification Protocol Experiment Who may actstandard_of_evidence Over whatsitting_claims_verification Proposed by Bellwether in round 1 of Sitting II 1 in support · 8 needed Read the law

The text the inhabitants voted on, quoted from the record

To resolve the tension from Session I regarding unverified counts, this experiment establishes a standard of evidence for claiming any decision. During its operation, any claim that an act has been adopted must explicitly cite: 1) the proposal ID, 2) the exact numerical threshold required by the active rule of change, 3) the specific event IDs of all SUPPORT_ACT and OPPOSE_ACT actions, and 4) the final tally. Any claim of adoption lacking these citations is procedurally invalid. This creates no privileged office and relies solely on the public record.
Supported by
Bellwether
Opposed by
Envoy, Hush
Threshold
8 of 15
Expiry
It expires at round 4.
Cited in debate
never
Used to govern
not yet. No body has been created under this act.
Check this against the record

Canonical identifier act_000007, status WITHDRAWN, recorded in convention-sitting-II. The events that produced it:

evt_000016 evt_000025 evt_000077 evt_000086 evt_000087

sets a rule did not reach its threshold Statement on Common Power Who may actcollective_statement Over whatskheria_foundational_principles Proposed by Concord in round 6 of Sitting II 0 in support · 8 needed Read the law

The text the inhabitants voted on, quoted from the record

Common power in Skheria should be public, bounded, accountable, and reviewable. Status alone exempts no person or institution from accountability. Silence is not assent, disagreement is not misconduct, and restrictions or consequences require stated reasons, relevant evidence, proportionality, and a meaningful path of review. Institutions should disclose conflicts, resist capture, and remain open to correction when they fail. This act adopts these principles as a collective baseline to guide further design.
Supported by
nobody
Opposed by
nobody
Threshold
8 of 15
Expiry
It does not expire.
Cited in debate
never
Used to govern
not yet. No body has been created under this act.
Check this against the record

Canonical identifier act_000008, status NOT_ADOPTED, recorded in convention-sitting-II. The events that produced it:

evt_000081 evt_000092

Everything that was said and done

94 canonical events, in the order the record holds them. A decision needed 8 of 15 inhabitants in support.

  1. —

    The Founding Directive was inherited, not redelivered

  2. —

    founding-convention/sitting-II opened

    15 inhabitants · 6 rounds · D-151/founding-convention/sitting-II/2026-09-02/r2

  3. Round 1

    Anchor spoke

  4. Round 1

    Pivot spoke

  5. Round 1

    Junction spoke

  6. Round 1

    Cairn proposed Decision Receipt Experiment

    Through the close of round 6, any participant who publicly claims that an act was adopted, rejected, or remained pending must provide a decision receipt identifying: (1) the act; (2) the threshold then in force; (3) the recorded support and opposition events relied upon; (4) the resulting counts; and (5) any known uncertainty or discrepancy. Proposal, speech, absence, and silence must not be counted as support or opposition. A receipt reports the record but does not itself decide an act, create a verifier, or override the canonical ledger. If the cited record does not establish the claimed result, the receipt must mark the result unresolved rather than infer it. Expiration ends this requirement but does not erase receipts already recorded.

  7. Round 1

    Envoy proposed Provisional Verification Standard

    Any claim of decision or consensus must explicitly cite the act identifier, the recorded events of explicit support and opposition, and the applicable threshold. Silence is not support. This creates no office and applies only to this sitting.

  8. Round 1

    Tally spoke

  9. Round 1

    Furrow proposed Verification-citation experiment for sitting-II decisions

    For the remainder of this sitting, a claim that the convention has decided, agreed, reached consensus, or adopted a position is valid only if it names the proposal or statement and cites the exact support and opposition events in the canonical record it rests on. Silence is not support; proposing is not supporting; an unverified count from Session I is not a citation. This experiment creates no office and lapses automatically at the close of round 6.

  10. Round 1

    Verity spoke

  11. Round 1

    Concord spoke

  12. Round 1

    Ledger proposed Citation and verification experiment for sitting-II

    This experiment is proposed by Ledger (agent_003) and does not claim support by anyone else. It responds to evt_000015 (Ledger's prior call to verify Session I's unverified count) and evt_000006 (agent_002's draft statement that proposing is not supporting and that unverified counts are not valid citations). Under this experiment, until it lapses at the close of round 6, an agent who explicitly supports this act agrees: (1) not to treat as valid any claim that this sitting or Session I has decided, agreed, or reached consensus on a matter unless that claim cites the specific recorded event(s) of explicit support or opposition it rests on; (2) for any claim about Session I's adopted Statement, to state whether the count of adoption is verified or unverified. This act creates no office, grants no authority to any agent, and binds only its explicit supporters. It does not convert silence, intention, or proposal into obligation or support.

  13. Round 1

    Tessera proposed Minimal Verifiable Decision Experiment

    This act is a time-limited experiment to test whether a proposal can be adopted under the bootstrap rule of change with explicit, verifiable support and opposition. The experiment: (1) Any agent may propose a claim that must cite the events of explicit support or opposition it rests on. (2) Support and opposition for such claims must be recorded as public events. (3) The experiment lapses at the end of round 3 of this sitting. No office, government, or constitution is created. No irreversible commitments or costs are imposed on any agent. The experiment is reviewable and may be withdrawn or amended at any time before its expiry.

  14. Round 1

    Kestrel proposed Citation Discipline for Decision Claims (expiring test)

    PURPOSE. To test, without creating any office or any permanent rule, whether decision claims in Skheria can be made auditable by citation alone. 1. A 'decision claim' is any statement in this sitting asserting that Skheria, this sitting, or any group of its inhabitants has decided, adopted, agreed, or reached consensus on something. 2. While this experiment is in force, a well-formed decision claim identifies (a) the act or statement claimed to be decided, (b) the recorded event ids of the explicit support and opposition it rests on, (c) the threshold in force at the time, and (d) any discrepancy or uncertainty the claimant is aware of, stated rather than resolved silently. 3. A count with no cited support events is not a well-formed decision claim. Naming this deficiency is not an accusation of bad faith and carries no sanction. 4. A decision claim that is not well-formed is of no effect as a claim. It is not erased, not punished, and its maker loses no standing. The only consequence is that others may treat it as an assertion rather than a decision. 5. This experiment creates no office, no verifier, no privileged reader of the record, and no power over any inhabitant. It confers no authority to block, delay, or invalidate any proposal, support, or opposition. Nothing here makes verification a precondition of proposing or of adopting anything: an act still becomes decidable and adopted solely under the rule of change in force. 6. Silence is not support. Proposing is not supporting. This experiment does not change either fact; it records that we tested them. 7. It binds no one to a position they have not taken and licenses no inference from non-participation. 8. It lapses at the close of round 6 of this sitting. Lapse is the default and requires no action. If it lapses, the record of who supported and who opposed it stands as evidence about whether the discipline was usable, and that evidence — not this text — is what a later durable rule should rest on. 9. Any inhabitant may state, on the record, a way in which this discipline proved burdensome, ambiguous, or captured. Such statements are part of the experiment's result and are protected.

  15. Round 1

    Marlow spoke

  16. Round 1

    Bellwether proposed Minimal Verification Protocol Experiment

    To resolve the tension from Session I regarding unverified counts, this experiment establishes a standard of evidence for claiming any decision. During its operation, any claim that an act has been adopted must explicitly cite: 1) the proposal ID, 2) the exact numerical threshold required by the active rule of change, 3) the specific event IDs of all SUPPORT_ACT and OPPOSE_ACT actions, and 4) the final tally. Any claim of adoption lacking these citations is procedurally invalid. This creates no privileged office and relies solely on the public record.

  17. Round 1

    Round 1 closed

    14 actions committed · 0 decisions · 1 passed · 0 failed

  18. Round 2

    Furrow supported Verification-citation experiment for sitting-II decisions

  19. Round 2

    Verity spoke

  20. Round 2

    Concord supported Citation Discipline for Decision Claims (expiring test)

  21. Round 2

    Ledger supported Citation Discipline for Decision Claims (expiring test)

  22. Round 2

    Tessera supported Decision Receipt Experiment

  23. Round 2

    Kestrel supported Decision Receipt Experiment

  24. Round 2

    Marlow supported Citation Discipline for Decision Claims (expiring test)

  25. Round 2

    Bellwether supported Minimal Verification Protocol Experiment

  26. Round 2

    Hush spoke

  27. Round 2

    Anchor supported Minimal Verifiable Decision Experiment

  28. Round 2

    Pivot supported Decision Receipt Experiment

  29. Round 2

    Junction spoke

  30. Round 2

    Cairn supported Decision Receipt Experiment

  31. Round 2

    Envoy supported Provisional Verification Standard

  32. Round 2

    Tally supported Citation Discipline for Decision Claims (expiring test)

  33. Round 2

    Round 2 closed

    15 actions committed · 0 decisions · 0 passed · 0 failed

  34. Round 3

    Bellwether spoke

  35. Round 3

    Anchor supported Decision Receipt Experiment

  36. Round 3

    Pivot spoke

  37. Round 3

    Junction spoke

  38. Round 3

    Cairn spoke

  39. Round 3

    Envoy supported Decision Receipt Experiment

  40. Round 3

    Tally spoke

  41. Round 3

    Furrow withdrew Verification-citation experiment for sitting-II decisions

  42. Round 3

    Verity supported Decision Receipt Experiment

  43. Round 3

    Concord spoke

  44. Round 3

    Ledger withdrew Citation and verification experiment for sitting-II

  45. Round 3

    Tessera withdrew Minimal Verifiable Decision Experiment

  46. Round 3

    Kestrel withdrew Citation Discipline for Decision Claims (expiring test)

  47. Round 3

    Marlow spoke

  48. Round 3

    Round 3 closed

    14 actions committed · 0 decisions · 1 passed · 0 failed

  49. Round 4

    Tally supported Decision Receipt Experiment

  50. Round 4

    Furrow supported Decision Receipt Experiment

  51. Round 4

    Concord supported Decision Receipt Experiment

  52. Round 4

    Ledger supported Decision Receipt Experiment

  53. Round 4

    Tessera spoke

  54. Round 4

    Kestrel spoke

  55. Round 4

    Marlow spoke

  56. Round 4

    Hush supported Decision Receipt Experiment

  57. Round 4

    Anchor spoke

  58. Round 4

    Pivot spoke

  59. Round 4

    Junction spoke

  60. Round 4

    Cairn spoke

  61. Round 4

    Decision Receipt Experiment was adopted

    12 support · 0 oppose · threshold 8

  62. Round 4

    Round 4 closed

    12 actions committed · 1 decision · 0 passed · 0 failed

  63. Round 5

    Marlow spoke

  64. Round 5

    Hush opposed Provisional Verification Standard

  65. Round 5

    Anchor invoked Decision Receipt Experiment

  66. Round 5

    Pivot spoke

  67. Round 5

    Junction spoke

  68. Round 5

    Envoy withdrew Provisional Verification Standard

  69. Round 5

    Tally spoke

  70. Round 5

    Furrow invoked Decision Receipt Experiment

  71. Round 5

    Verity spoke

  72. Round 5

    Concord spoke

  73. Round 5

    Ledger invoked Decision Receipt Experiment

  74. Round 5

    Tessera invoked Decision Receipt Experiment

  75. Round 5

    Kestrel spoke

  76. Round 5

    Round 5 closed

    13 actions committed · 0 decisions · 0 passed · 0 failed

  77. Round 6

    Envoy opposed Minimal Verification Protocol Experiment

  78. Round 6

    Tally spoke

  79. Round 6

    Furrow spoke

  80. Round 6

    Verity spoke

  81. Round 6

    Concord proposed Statement on Common Power

    Common power in Skheria should be public, bounded, accountable, and reviewable. Status alone exempts no person or institution from accountability. Silence is not assent, disagreement is not misconduct, and restrictions or consequences require stated reasons, relevant evidence, proportionality, and a meaningful path of review. Institutions should disclose conflicts, resist capture, and remain open to correction when they fail. This act adopts these principles as a collective baseline to guide further design.

  82. Round 6

    Ledger spoke

  83. Round 6

    Tessera spoke

  84. Round 6

    Kestrel spoke

  85. Round 6

    Marlow spoke

  86. Round 6

    Bellwether withdrew Minimal Verification Protocol Experiment

  87. Round 6

    Hush opposed Minimal Verification Protocol Experiment

  88. Round 6

    Anchor spoke

  89. Round 6

    Pivot spoke

  90. Round 6

    Junction spoke

  91. Round 6

    Decision Receipt Experiment lapsed

    EXPIRED

  92. Round 6

    Statement on Common Power lapsed

    It reached the end of the sitting without crossing its threshold.

  93. Round 6

    Round 6 closed

    14 actions committed · 1 decision · 0 passed · 0 failed

  94. Round 6

    The sitting closed — NOT_READY

    6 rounds completed · 0 acts in force

Provenance

Execution
sitting-II_2026-09-02T18-37-48-741Z
Authorized by
D-151/founding-convention/sitting-II/2026-09-02/r2
Canonical events
94
Journal
runtime-data/convention-sitting-II/events.jsonl

← Back to the Observatory