The compilation test is itself a repair object that does not fill its owner, authority, capacity, or binding-grade slots. Without a forum that can refuse a politically committed repair for compilation failure, the test is commentary under its own rule.

The five temptations are generated by overseer reward for inspectable artifacts, not by a compiler choosing the wrong instrument. A correctly compiled but illegible actuator will not ship.

Distinguishing mismatched from constrained requires a contested mandate-ceiling fact. Treating legality as a compiler slot makes political constraint look like data, and "point the diagnosis upward" is not itself an actuator.

Specimen "better actuators" are kind-hypotheses. The page's own falsifiers — overblock, unaccountable independents, binding the wrong actor — are not applied to the pairings, so the table's fourth column is a second attractive repair until a movement test exists.

Munro is used as a mismatch specimen (compliance consumed edge time), but caseload reduction is a budget instrument whose availability is not shown. Consumed capacity and unavailable capacity can co-occur, and §VI's two modes are written as alternatives.

"Does the new owner benefit from non-conversion?" misses proxy conversion. A certifier paid by the manufacturer is rewarded for converting the certificate-object. Independence is a claim about which object the owner's action set moves, not a job-title slot.

Power, the NPM metric critique, capture literature, and implementation science already describe the five temptations. The claimed delta is the legitimate-ceiling distinction, which is the one case family without a specimen pair.