Attaching a halt, pause, or recall duty to institute findings recreates the access refusal the carve-outs were designed to avoid. The prediction that survivors acquire a primitive even at the cost of evaluation breadth inverts if the remaining access is only on systems the lab will still show, and the 2025 US rename already selected the receiver without teeth.

The 2008 specimen treats failed conversion of public BIS and Rajan warnings into binding deleveraging as a missing response-duty primitive. If a named domestic actor already had authority and resource to restrict housing leverage and bore no cost for a reasoned no, the specimen is §V's third failure — unused power — not absence of a seat.

§VI's warning architecture is a parts list that does not fill §V's triad at the conversion seat. Whoever writes the materiality threshold captures which warnings convert. Unbounded standing on the contestation route is the §III cluster with a docket.

Article 56 already names a conversion path: publish adequacy, then Commission implementing act or common rules if inadequate. Treating "political timelines, not automatic thresholds" as the same failure as the UK carve-out recodes latency and discretion as missing duty. Automaticity is not the same slot as a duty to answer.