Consolidation step 3: appeal spine — ANNEX_L §L7 as the one appeal procedure (P-074)

docs/annexes/ANNEX_AI.md

@@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ One sub-Ombuds rotates into the 3-member arbitration panel convened within 72 ho
 
 *Protocol-level — Plenum vote required per §3.2 item 4.*
 
-Any party subject to a §4.2 Graduated Penalty may appeal to the Federation within 30 days of determination. The Plenum hears the appeal and decides under FC-091 (4 of 5 to overturn). If the Plenum overturns, the penalty is vacated; if remanded (3 of 5), the Enforcement Panel re-investigates; if affirmed (<3 affirmative for overturn), the penalty stands.
+Any party subject to a §4.2 Graduated Penalty may appeal to the Federation on the appeal spine ([ANNEX_L §L7](./ANNEX_L.md) — one filing rule, L7.1). The Plenum hears the appeal and decides under FC-091 (4 of 5 to overturn). If the Plenum overturns, the penalty is vacated; if remanded (3 of 5), the Enforcement Panel re-investigates; if affirmed (<3 affirmative for overturn), the penalty stands.
 
 Appeals are heard de novo on the evidentiary record. The Plenum may also issue binding interpretive guidance to the Enforcement Panel with each appeal decision.
 

docs/annexes/ANNEX_AJ.md

@@ -272,7 +272,7 @@ Penalty adjudication is administered by the **Enforcement Panel** (a sub-body of
 2. **Gain quantification.** The enforcement body quantifies the functional gain per §4.1. Quantification methodology is documented and subject to the P-017 oracle-independence standards (Annex AL) where gain estimation requires measurement of market prices or cohort comparisons.
 3. **Notice and response.** The accused actor receives notice with the factual finding, the gain quantification, and the scheduled penalty. Actor has 30 days to contest findings or accept.
 4. **Adjudication.** Contested cases proceed to the Enforcement Panel. Panel composition: 3 seats drawn from the Article VII enforcement staff, 2 seats drawn from the Ombuds roster per Annex AI, 1 seat drawn from the affected-party advocacy roster. No Enforcement Panel member may have a prior relationship with the accused actor within 3 years.
-5. **Appeal.** Adjudicated penalties are appealable once, through the federated Ombuds process per Annex AI §4.8 (Enforcement Panel Appeals). Appeal pauses license actions but not gain-recoupment until resolved.
+5. **Appeal.** Adjudicated penalties are appealable once, on the appeal spine ([ANNEX_L §L7](./ANNEX_L.md)) via the federated Ombuds process per Annex AI §4.8 (Enforcement Panel Appeals) — the Plenum, not the CRP ladder, is the final instance (ANNEX_L §L7.3). Appeal pauses license actions but not gain-recoupment: recoupment proceeds during appeal **into escrow**, refunded with accrued return if the appeal succeeds (ANNEX_L §L7.2) — so appeal never becomes a window to dissipate gains, and a successful appellant is made whole.
 6. **Publication.** Final findings are published on the Enforcement Ledger (Article VII) in aggregate form, with individual findings published only where necessary for statutory notice or where the actor has consented. PII is stripped per Annex AM.
 
 ### 4.5 — Deterrence Audit

docs/annexes/ANNEX_AS.md

@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ A false-claim finding by the Ombuds (Annex AI) or the Enforcement Panel (Annex A
 | False attestation, knowing (attestor knew claim was false or recklessly indifferent) | 100% of placed stake slashed; attestor referred to Enforcement Panel under Annex AJ §4.2 at AJ-2.2 severity (1.5×) for the functional gain created by the false attestation |
 | Attestation ring or coordinated false attestation | 100% of placed stake slashed for all ring members; Annex AJ §4.2 AJ-2.2 + AJ-2.3 escalation; 2-year attestation disqualification; Service Record deduction per matrix |
 
-**Slashed stake distribution** (§3).
+**Slashed stake distribution** (§3). Slashing findings are appealable per the appeal spine ([ANNEX_L §L7](./ANNEX_L.md)); final adjudication lies with the Ombuds Plenum per Annex AI §4.9, with stake escrowed until finality.
 
 ### 2.5 — Pre-commit Transparency
 

docs/annexes/ANNEX_D.md

@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ Commons Return assessment data is a monitoring stream for purposes of [P-069](..
 
 **D6.2 Public formulas, private details.** Public dashboards show aggregate receipts and burden distribution. Individual household and business details remain protected unless disclosure is required for a specific adjudicated enforcement action.
 
-**D6.3 Appeal right.** Every assessment must include a plain-language basis, evidence source, appeal path, hardship route, and non-displacement protection where applicable.
+**D6.3 Appeal right.** Every assessment must include a plain-language basis, evidence source, appeal path, hardship route, and non-displacement protection where applicable. Appeals follow the appeal spine ([ANNEX_L §L7](./ANNEX_L.md)).
 
 **D6.4 Independent review.** Valuation methods, source-base definitions, and exemption decisions require recurring review by independent methodology classes under Annex AL-style independence rules.
 

docs/annexes/ANNEX_I.md

@@ -98,12 +98,11 @@ A humane system must also be capacity-honest. Regions may not promise settlement
 
 ### I8. Appeals, review, and privacy protections
 - Every adverse status decision must be provided in writing with reasons, evidence basis, review path, and timeline.
-- Emergency review must begin within 72 hours where shelter loss, family separation, medical interruption, or expulsion risk is involved.
-- Ordinary status appeals must be available within 14 days of filing, with a written determination within 30 days unless the claimant requests more time.
 - Residency and migration data may be used only for continuity, routing, anti-fraud, safety, and lawfully published planning purposes. Individual-level exposure on public dashboards is prohibited.
 - The capacity dashboards and any migrant or entrant datasets are governed by data minimization, retention limits, and access controls. Only data necessary for the stated purpose is collected; it is retained no longer than that purpose requires and then deleted or irreversibly aggregated; access is limited to authorized roles and every access is logged. Such data may never be repurposed for enforcement, expulsion, deterrence, or any use beyond the lawful purposes named in this annex.
 - Privacy, anti-publicity, and anti-discrimination protections cover not only a person's individual records but also their status-classification data — which status class they are in. Status-class membership may not be published, disclosed, or made discoverable at the individual level, and may not be used as a basis for differential treatment outside the lawful service-routing and due-process purposes defined in this annex, so that a status class cannot harden into a public mark or stigma.
 - Children and protected entrants receive heightened confidentiality, and their data may not be publicized for deterrence theater or political messaging.
+- Status appeals run on the appeal spine ([ANNEX_L §L7](./ANNEX_L.md)), which carries the clocks (72h emergency / 14-day docket / 30-day determination); escalation follows the spine ladder.
 
 ### I9. Absence, exit, reentry, and continuity preservation
 - Routine travel, temporary caregiving, education, service deployment, medical treatment, or family emergency absence does not by itself break Core Resident continuity.

docs/annexes/ANNEX_J.md

@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ The transparency precondition is calibrated to the structure held, not to ordina
 
 **R2.2 Bounded capital claims.** Capital claims on stewarded assets are bounded — through anti-rent use-right logic for land and housing, capped and redeemable outside-capital instruments for enterprise, and judicially reviewable limits on passive extraction. The boundary distinguishes a fair return on contribution from a perpetual rent extracted because one holds the title.
 
-**R2.3 Passive-extraction prohibition is reviewable.** Whether a given arrangement is productive stewardship or prohibited passive extraction is a reviewable question, not a self-certification. Determinations rest on published criteria, are subject to appeal, and require mission-lock documentation where stewardship status is claimed. Valuation disputes about what counts as productive stewardship are resolved through that review process, not by the asserted intent of the holder.
+**R2.3 Passive-extraction prohibition is reviewable.** Whether a given arrangement is productive stewardship or prohibited passive extraction is a reviewable question, not a self-certification. Determinations rest on published criteria, are appealable per the appeal spine ([ANNEX_L §L7](./ANNEX_L.md)) with the independent stewardship reviewer as first instance, and require mission-lock documentation where stewardship status is claimed. Valuation disputes about what counts as productive stewardship are resolved through that review process, not by the asserted intent of the holder.
 
 The review is bound to a rule, not to discretion. The criteria distinguishing productive stewardship from prohibited passive extraction — and the line at which contributed risk and value have been fairly returned — are published in advance and applied as a standing rule to like cases alike, not improvised case by case. Those criteria live in a published stewardship standard set under Article V, itself open to challenge and revision through ordinary review; the adjudicating body applies that standard and does not author the boundary in the course of deciding a particular holding. The reviewer of any determination is independent of the parties and of any person who would benefit from the outcome, and recuses where a conflict exists. The burden of proof is bounded and stated in the published standard: a holder is not presumed to be a passive extractor, an honest steward is not put to an impossible proof, and the case for prohibition rests on the reviewing body against the published criteria. These constraints exist so that the boundary between protected stewardship and prohibited extraction is fixed by a rule announced beforehand, in the spirit of a fixed Jubilee release rather than a discretionary judgment that could be turned to advantage.
 

docs/annexes/ANNEX_L.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 > **At a glance**
 > | | |
 > |---|---|
-> | **Purpose** | Constitutes the three-tier review architecture (Local Review Offices, Regional Constitutional Chambers, Constitutional Review Panel), defines CRP composition via sortition, sets standards of review for each tier, specifies the remedy ladder, and maps dispute classes to forum and appeal path. |
+> | **Purpose** | Constitutes the three-tier review architecture (Local Review Offices, Regional Constitutional Chambers, Constitutional Review Panel), defines CRP composition via sortition, sets standards of review for each tier, specifies the remedy ladder, and maps dispute classes to forum and appeal path; §L7 is the canonical appeal spine for every appeal context in the corpus. |
 > | **Who it protects** | Anyone who suffers an adverse decision — loss of Essential Access, identity denial, oracle dispute, emergency-power overreach — and needs a legible, fast-acting path to challenge it. |
 > | **Failure risk** | Without a constituted review body, the CRP remains implicit and therefore capturable; no single office can quietly reinterpret the constitution, but multiple offices in concert can if there is no independent check. |
 > | **Evidence status** | Designed |
@@ -70,3 +70,57 @@ Every materially adverse decision must be challengeable by a legible path. Autom
 - Counsel and advocate support extend to the commercial-court and technical-audit tracks, so that under-resourced parties receive qualified representation and independent expert assistance where expertise or cost asymmetry would otherwise undercut the burden-shift above.
 - Emergency relief windows should be measured in hours or days, not months, whenever survival access, identity continuity, or liberty interests are at stake.
 - Algorithmic systems must preserve the inputs, rules, and model / version state necessary for retrospective review.
+
+---
+
+## L7 — The Appeal Spine (P-074 consolidation)
+
+> **Provenance:** Consolidated under the Framework-First Intake rule (P-073, Acceptance_Protocol). ANNEX_L is the most general existing appeal instrument; this section makes it the single canonical spine. Domain annexes keep their first-instance bodies and substantive standards; they no longer carry their own filing rules, windows, or escalation procedure. Status: `Designed`. Domain documents name their first-instance body and substantive standard and cite this section for everything procedural; a domain document restating its own filing rule, window, or escalation path is in drift — the spine governs. New appeal contexts are added as a row in L7.5, never as new machinery (P-073). Changes to the spine's clocks, the imminent-serious-harm standard, or the deletion of an intake row receive Strict review (L4).
+
+### L7.1 One filing rule
+
+Any materially adverse determination under this corpus — a denial, reduction, suspension, flag, quarantine, classification, penalty, or refusal to act — is appealable by the person or body it burdens. One trigger: receipt (or constructive receipt) of the adverse decision with its written reasons. One window: **30 days** from that notice, extended automatically where notice was defective, inaccessible, or never reached the person. Filing is reachable without identity documents, literacy, fee, or counsel (INV-013); a trusted helper or community navigator may file without the appellant losing any right.
+
+### L7.2 What continues during appeal
+
+- **The survival floor always continues.** Any withholding of the Constitutional Survival Minimum — system-originated or host-instructed — is resolved toward provision while the appeal is pending (INV-013, INV-019). A withholding with no open appeal path is void.
+- **For everything else, the status quo ante continues:** the standing, access, housing continuity, issuance, or classification the person held before the adverse decision remains in force during appeal, except where a published, reviewable imminent-serious-harm standard is met (the ANNEX_U §U6 standard, generalized). Until the generalized imminent-serious-harm standard is published — authored and amended under the ANNEX_U §U5 threshold-setting discipline, and its publication a pre-launch gate — each domain's existing published interim measure (e.g., the ANNEX_X §X6 least-harm interim status) continues to operate during appeal; status quo ante does not vacate it. Invocation of the imminent-serious-harm exception is itself immediately appealable on the emergency clock (L7.4), with the burden on the invoking body, and it may never be invoked against the survival floor.
+- **Penalties and stakes:** license and access sanctions pause during appeal; monetary gain-recoupment proceeds during appeal **into escrow** per ANNEX_AJ §4.4 — refunded with accrued return if the appeal succeeds — so appeal never becomes a window to dissipate gains; slashed-stake distribution does not execute until finality, the stake remaining escrowed (ANNEX_AI §4.9). Stake under a false-claim finding is escrowed, not slashed, until final determination (ANNEX_AI §4.9).
+
+### L7.3 The ladder
+
+1. **First instance — domain specialist body** (table in L7.5). The specialist applies its own published substantive standard; the spine governs only procedure and escalation.
+2. **Second instance — Regional Constitutional Chamber** (L1), on the record, with emergency relief authority.
+3. **Final instance — split by question:**
+   - **Constitutional questions** (Tier boundaries, invariant violation, instrument separation, rights deprivation): the **CRP** (L1–L4 standards of review).
+   - **Enforcement and Ombuds-administered administrative questions** (Enforcement Panel penalties, attestation false-claim findings, manufactured-flag determinations): the **Ombuds Plenum** under FC-091 (ANNEX_AI §3.2, §4.8–4.9). These do not merge into the CRP ladder: folding them in would reduce the independence count bearing on enforcement outcomes (P-073's simplicity-presumption limit; INV-006). Residual cross-links are acknowledged honestly: the Enforcement Panel seats members from the Ombuds roster (ANNEX_AJ §4.4) and sub-Ombuds Commissioners are confirmed by the CRP (ANNEX_AI §2.1) — the split raises the independence count, it does not perfect it. A constitutional challenge to the Ombuds' own conduct runs up the CRP ladder, so neither final instance sits unaudited.
+
+   A single appeal raising both kinds of question is heard by its domain ladder, and the constitutional question is certified to the CRP; the appellant is never required to diagnose the split to file (one door, L7.1).
+
+### L7.4 Timing
+
+| Class | Clock |
+| :--- | :--- |
+| **Emergency** (shelter loss, floor interruption, family separation, medical interruption, expulsion, identity lockout) | Review begins within **72 hours**; interim relief decided in the same window. |
+| **Time-critical operational** (demand-context flags, PCRP co-certification, supply-shock action) | The Duty body acts immediately; full post-hoc review within **30 days** (ANNEX_AI §3.1 urgency split, preserved). |
+| **Ordinary** | Appeal acknowledged and docketed within **14 days** of filing; written first-instance determination within **30 days** unless the appellant requests more time. |
+| **Escalation** | Each higher instance runs on the same 14/30 clocks from receipt of the escalated record. |
+
+A blown clock never costs the appellant: relief pending review continues until the late decision actually issues. On final affirmance of a monetary assessment, penalty, or quarantine, amounts and restrictions relieved during a blown-clock period are reinstated retroactively (escrow-settled), so delay relief is never a prize for the merits-loser. This reinstatement never applies to the survival floor (INV-013).
+
+### L7.5 Domain intake table
+
+The L6 dispute-class table is the first-instance map for Essential Access, identity/personhood, Voice/Service Record, and emergency-powers appeals; the rows below add the contexts L6 does not name.
+
+| Appeal context | First instance | Escalates to chamber when | Final instance |
+| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |
+| Civic standing / residency status (ANNEX_I §I8) | Status review per §I8 | Adverse determination upheld | CRP |
+| Productive-status / stewardship determination (Productive Status Register; ANNEX_J §R2.3) | ANNEX_J independent stewardship reviewer (per §R2.3) | Determination upheld; INV-006 separation question | CRP |
+| Commons Return / CRUS assessment (FC-209) | Commons Return assessment review (per ANNEX_D §D6) | Assessed holder or excluded claimant unsatisfied; hardship route denied | CRP |
+| Monitoring flag / Flow quarantine (ANNEX_C, ANNEX_X §X6) | Named human reviewer in the Monitoring Purpose Register entry | Flag maintained past review clock | CRP |
+| Housing use-right renewal denial (ANNEX_U §U6) | Housing stewardship review (per ANNEX_U §U6) | Denial upheld | CRP |
+| Enforcement Panel penalty (ANNEX_AJ §4) | Enforcement Panel determination record | — (no chamber tier) | **Ombuds Plenum**, FC-091 (ANNEX_AI §4.8) |
+| Attestation false-claim / stake slashing (ANNEX_AS §2.4) | Originating investigator record | — (no chamber tier) | **Ombuds Plenum**, FC-091 (ANNEX_AI §4.9) |
+
+A context not listed here defaults to the nearest L6 dispute class; absence from this table is never a reason to refuse a filing. A filing made at any first-instance body, the Ombuds, or the floor-access point is a valid filing; the receiving body routes it to the correct first instance without loss of the filing date. Intake routing — including class assignment and any nearest-dispute-class default — is recorded with reasons, is itself challengeable on the spine, and a misrouting never consumes the appellant's window or clocks. Survival-floor cases are emergency-class automatically; other emergency-class intake may verify the published predicate, and a post-finding manufactured-emergency determination is sanctionable without ever conditioning the floor.
+