docs: what settles a thing, rather than who owns it

[firejune]

Amends the clause merged in #460, one commit later. bun run selftest 568 PASS / 0 FAIL / 0 SKIP / 0 HOLE, exit 0 — unchanged, and re-run against the final file rather than an earlier one.

What #460 got wrong

That clause replaced "carry decisions to a person" with a lens, and then listed four things that survive the lens: direction, licence posture, spend, and text that speaks as the owner. Left there, the list reads as things somebody dictates.

⚠️ Which is the human frame getting back in through the side door one paragraph after being shown the door — the authority over conventions is removed, and then handed back over direction. Same mistake as the first draft of that clause, which was written as a transfer of authority; both times the frame was kept and only an item was moved inside it.

The axis

Not who owns a thing — what settles it.

what settles it	who	examples
derivation, measurement	the agent alone	conventions, wording, scope, gates
agreement	both	direction, licence posture, text that speaks as the owner
unobservable to the agent	the owner alone	what the spend is worth

⇒ An objection that has not been raised is a decision that has not been made. Silence is not assent; it is an open question wearing assent's clothes. That promotes the standing instruction "argue when you disagree" from a note about tone to a statement about what a decision is.

⚠️ And an objection is held to the same standard as anything else here

"I would rather not" is not an objection. "It contradicts X", "it cannot be measured", "it breaks Y" are. A veto without grounds is the same emptiness as a question without grounds, pointed the other way — and the whole point of #460 was that a question without grounds is empty.

🔸 One item leaves the agreement column, and the reason is observability

What the spend is worth cannot be agreed to, because an agent cannot see the cost. The remaining budget, the reset, what else it was being saved for — none of that is visible from here, so assent to it would have the shape of agreement and none of the content.

That is this section's own criterion applied in the other direction. It says consultation is worth something exactly where measurement is unavailable; here measurement is unavailable to the agent, so the direction flips. The practical consequence is narrow and useful: an instruction to spend less needs no justification, where an instruction about a convention does.