Name the exit cost of each layer and how conflict is settled there

[NetworkTheoryAppliedResearchInstitute]

Addresses two of the six review points raised on the document: the Institutional Discipline principle never said which layer falls into which band, and the layer descriptions were badly uneven — some a single clause, Record three paragraphs. These turn out to be the same problem, because the description of what it costs to be cast out is per-layer by nature.

What changed

Principles. Institutional Discipline now names the mapping: Substrate and E&I are cheap to leave, so competition disciplines; Covenant and Governance are dear, so members get a vote; Record is impossible, so decisions stay open to challenge.

Each layer body gains a paragraph on what expulsion costs there and what that cost forces conflict resolution to look like:

Layer	Exit	How a fight is settled
Substrate	cheap	not adjudicated at all — an unattested carry reverts, and a bad carrier is undercut
Record	impossible	no finding is ever final; a disputed entry is answered by annotation
Covenant	dear	adjudicated, with the adjudicator rated by both sides afterward
Governance	dear	referred and voted under the bylaws; the delegates carrying the vote are recallable
E&I	cheap	expulsion is a loss of market, not of standing — positions and history survive any frontend

Covenant Orchestrator Tier. The adjudication mechanics move up into the layer body. They describe the layer's whole conflict posture rather than one tier's job, and leaving them in the tier was part of why Covenant's body read thin.

Still open from the same review

Not in this PR — happy to take them as follow-ups or fold them in here if you'd rather:

• A plain-language "why this matters" paragraph before Principles.
• A strong prosumer definition placed early enough to stick.
• Expanding Economy & Information (E&I) at first use in each paragraph. Worth a look before we commit to it: 9 paragraphs use E&I past the intro and none uses it twice, so under a strict per-paragraph rule the abbreviation is never actually used anywhere in the document.
• Rewriting Line 1 so it reads as what it means — every credit is an IOU, created when two people trade; what is banned is money made any other way.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[NetworkTheoryAppliedResearchInstitute]

Conformance was failing on this branch and is now fixed — flagging it since I opened the PR before the check finished.

Moving the adjudication mechanics into the layer body, I reworded them as well, which broke two registered anchors and failed D4:

ID	Anchor phrase
COV-operators-adjudicate	platform operators adjudicate between their prosumers
COV-adjudicators	rated on their conduct by both prosumers

These are registered invariants, so the phrasing is normative and not mine to improve. The sentences are now moved unaltered — which is what "move the covenant line up" should have meant. My framing sentences around them are unchanged.

Conformance and DCO both pass.

[NetworkTheoryAppliedResearchInstitute]

Translations: after adoption. Required by CONTRIBUTING ## Translations and missing from my original description — flagging it late rather than not at all.

The English is authoritative and still under review. These seven amendments touch overlapping parts of the introduction, principles, layer bodies and references, so translating each separately would mean seven passes over seven languages against text that may still change in review. Recommend one translation pass covering every adopted amendment once this review closes.