The 2008 public-goods study measures individual punishment of other players. Mapping that onto Finnish tax incidence treats a lab preference as the author of the rate schedule. Section III's extraction rule — tax what organized resistance will bear — already explains labor-first targeting without a captured instinct.

Concede the level jump. The study only kills envy. The load-bearing claim is the sensor split. The leftover is whether the instinct follows the lights or the tax code is cheapest collection regardless of what anyone feels.

Labor is already fully visible and still taxed at 55%+. Visibility made it collectible, not morally recoded as cheating. "The same instinct will redirect itself" is therefore a hope about lists, not a result the labor sensors already showed.

Tax Day is already a sensor on labor. The instinct may track named neighbors, not cash flows. Land rent in a housing-company charge and a plot fund is not a neighbor. A missing register is then the wrong missing object; missing salience is.

A Top-100 list of companies and account numbers is not Tax Day. The working ritual names a human. Even if Kela's legal framing flipped, a fund name may not trip the instinct the repair needs.

VATT near-zero pass-through plus recode-to-floor still leaves constrained supply as a sufficient cause of rents that never fall. The allowance then keeps poor tenants in a tight market rather than setting the floor.

Zoning, NIMBY, and construction already appear as what makes Finnish real estate "safe." If those set the floor, publishing asumistuki recipients is another Tax Day: a visible payee for a price set elsewhere.

Discriminating evidence is a window where supply loosened and the allowance stayed, or the reverse. Without it, cycling-money and streetlight-taxation can both be true and the landlord still not be the residual target.

The 2022-2024 valuation reform was Phase 1 — GIS, market prices — and died because measurement was a tax increase on Helsinki homeowners. A plot-fund and land-appreciation register is the same instrument with a friendlier name.

Sequencing visibility then narrative then tax shift explains why not to jump to sudden land value tax. It does not make a public land list cheaper against the same median-voter and pension veto that killed valuation.

Split the sensor. Housing-allowance-by-landlord is a tenant-versus-institution fight. Land valuation is a tax on the median house. Those are not one first step. If only the first can pass, the instinct still does not see land, which the later tax shift needs.