The title's claim-mode is still open between evaluation and ontology. Hart would keep the 14-day access rule as valid law and treat missed queues as a later-stage failure; Fuller would treat flagrant non-congruence as a failure to be law at all; Holmes and Pound would treat the 16-month practice as the law. Keep those three models in play against named files rather than re-arguing that promulgation is not delivery: GDPR Article 52(4) versus the Austrian DSB's 2024 staffing, the War Powers Resolution's 60-day clock versus Libya 2011, Chevron then Loper Bright as who owns interpretation. Discriminator: if the 14-day provision is still a valid duty being missed, the essay is Hart-plus-evaluation, and the live job is which later stage failed. Author dispositions stay author-owned.