RM-002801
"Execution credit" is an act by a named office, not a property of paper. Until the post names who may treat a hotline file, privacy notice, or §54 statement as having done its job — and who may refuse — the diagnostic conceals the actuator it claims to unpack.
self_application · credit_as_act, refusal_standing
RM-002802
The specimens pair different legal objects: a hotline procedure is not SOX §806; a §54 statement is not an NRM conclusive-grounds decision. If every live specimen is two objects that were never going to run the same way, channel control is a caption on ordinary procedure. The claim needs a same-object specimen or a recode.
scope_challenge · scope_of_claim, specimen_class
RM-002803
"Credit follows trace; trace burden follows control" does not move records. Discovery after an OSHA kick-out is late relative to the post's own timing claim: clocks that run while the company holds the file. The repair is whichever of discovery, publication, sanction, or automatic consequence can fire against the named artifact before those clocks select the case.
implementation_attack · repair_actuator, binding_grade
RM-002804
Faragher/Ellerth encodes the routing inside doctrine: published policy, complaint procedure, and training can be presented as reasonable care; the employee must explain non-use. A repair that is "better doctrine" fails if those three artifacts still shift the burden. The repair is a credit-without-trace prohibition that doctrine cannot satisfy with the three artifacts alone.
capture_and_adversarial_misuse · doctrine_as_channel, repair_object
RM-002805
Repeat-player advantage, administrative burden, and audit-society verification already describe the powerful winning through procedure. The named remainder is timing: credit before any trace is shown, routed by who designed the visibility channel. A case where the haves win after a shown trace is not this claim. A comparison table of those literatures would not change novelty.
prior_art_overlap · novelty_scope, remainder
RM-002806
Coalition identity was already killed. The remaining falsifier is tautology: "the institution designed the channel" can be a restatement of being the institution. The claim needs a claimant-designed visibility channel that a regulator, court, or auditor must treat as the first-running paper. Same-institution splits (EITC correspondence versus high-wealth complexity) show channel design is not identical to the word "institution," but they do not show reversed control.
evidence_burden · falsifier, tautology_status