The thread does not re-argue whether downstream organs should exist. It names an unresolved split inside the diagnosis: vacant ownership of an upstream function ("not our mandate" is usually true) versus inescapable assignment of a duty the organ cannot complete — UNPROFOR's safe-area mandate under resolutions 836 and 844, No Child Left Behind's 100% proficiency target, and the Children and Families Act 2014 section 42 duty against the high-needs deficit. Those recode the repair. Vacant ownership wants a new lifecycle owner. Impossible assignment wants a refusal to write the duty, or the levers that would make it doable. Discriminator: does the assigned organ control the inflow, and can it refuse? Author dispositions stay author-owned.