Changes touching this path

• a proposal row gains an owner, because it had none: /propose asked whether the signer may propose here and never whether this ROW was theirs to write, so both stores upserted unconditionally with the state reset to open and only landed excluded - which made the ban-and-quota handle rewritable by any account holder who could present the same change id, and made the author's withdrawal reversible by a stranger. It was proved by running the hijack rather than by reading, with a throwaway witness that printed the takeover happening: state Withdrawn with the presenter as proposer before, state Open with the hijacker as proposer after. The rule is the party whose act would be overwritten and nobody else, and it is refusal FIVE because it needs the change id the byte refusals produce. Open lets the PROPOSER amend, which is the carrier re-presenting an updated stack and is the legitimate case the rule cannot simply forbid, so it carries a positive control. Withdrawn lets the AUTHOR alone reopen, because a withdrawal is the one-actor decision withdraw already makes and letting the carrier undo it reaches that decision from behind. Declined lets EITHER party, and that asymmetry is argued rather than assumed: the decline is the OWNER's act and an owner cannot propose, so a stricter rule would leave a declined change id with no exit at all, which is precisely ADR 0075's honourably re-proposed arm. Landed is untouched and stays the store's own invariant rather than being restated. Every party is read from the row ON FILE and never from the presented tip, which the caller chose. The refusal is kept from becoming an existence oracle twice over: concealed and visible-but-not-yours collapse into one sentence that names no term of the row, asserted byte-identical across two keys and both settings of metadata_public with a loop proving it names no proposer, author, tip or state - and the structural half is the stronger one, since both entitled parties are already standing readers, so the write gate is a PROPER SUBSET of the read gate, pinned with the owner as the control because the owner reads and is refused writing. One instruction was subtly wrong and is recorded rather than followed: withdraw pairs ABSENT with concealed, but /propose has no absent refusal at all since an unused change id is ADMITTED, so the assertable pair is concealed against not-yours and the residue - that being refused says the change id is taken - is stated in the amendment instead of being claimed away. The disclosure stops overclaiming: it said nothing has left this machine yet while a SIGNED posture read had already gone and a test welded that sentence, so it now names what went and what it told the forge. And burn stops calling a proposal a push, which is the rule disclosure.rs states two files away, with is_disclosure and the tier token both untouched and a test asserting the prose moved where the token did not (#1746) db0f3142 · dbf3dbe6…

Renames are not followed. loot's tree maps a path to an address, so a rename is a delete and an add. This list is the history of the name, not of the bytes.