Purpose language is not the missing object. Ireland's Article 45 writes a social-policy what-for and forbids the courts to apply it; the US preamble and TEU Article 3 state aims that Jacobson and conferral treat as non-powers; India's Directive Principles tried to rank purpose over rights and Minerva Mills closed on harmony instead. A numbered what-for already exists at agency scale: the Fed's dual mandate, with only prices given a meter (2% PCE, January 2012). Singapore's competing model is a White Paper plus operated housing quotas, not a public contestable composite. The remaining claim is narrower: a combined-system closer that can retire a local optimizer without becoming the FOMC and without becoming a non-justiciable slogan.