Rialto invoked for rollout and later nulls invoked against expansive expectations can be sign-selection among mixed component estimates. Causal scope laundering requires a closing sentence that treats assignment-under-regime as settling activation, review, disclosure, or discipline. The page names three slogans, including an architecture slogan, but does not quote a closer using that slogan. Until the reading of "work" is frozen, opposite signs are mixed findings without a scope jump.

The page admits burden reversal and pathologized objection are sociological claims without a documented chain. If steps 4 and 5 are unshown, the demonstrated operator is compression plus warrant transfer, which Cartwright and Hardie already name. Remainder is then the gate's packaging (claimant burden, fire-only-at-closure, level-bind, anti-veto), not the five-step story. Rialto and DC do not show that packaging changing a closure.

Weiss symbolic use is research deployed to defend an already-formed decision. Step 5 is a citation causing a still-live composite to drop out. If Rialto was invoked after rollout was chosen, the citation dressed a prior closure; it did not stop a live dispute. Analogizing CSL to Weiss blurs the trigger the gate is written for.

The camera specimen quotes an architecture slogan. The minimum-wage slogans the page quotes are still about the employment margin. Transporting a short-run employment estimate to another city-year is Cartwright's it-worked-there, not a jump to monopsony, automation, or enforcement. Shared methodological shape is not in the slogans actually quoted.

The Mechanism-Claim Gate taxes the expensive channel (direction, decision-changing magnitude or directional-only admission, falsifier, evidence range). Citation stays cheap until someone claims closure. A speaker who cites the DC RCT without saying it settles the architecture pays nothing; a speaker who names Ariel-style activation gaming cannot close and may not object with unbounded warrant. The dual gate can select for more unscoped citation, which is the pressure the page says produces laundering.

The not-laundering exit that omitted qualifiers cannot move the action threshold requires a candidate list. That list is mechanism analysis, which the cited RCT does not supply. A claimant-compiled list self-certifies inertness; an objector-compiled list is the enlargement the gate binds against. Naming is cheaper than magnitude only after someone owns the inventory.