Actually, I note the following. The wording in EXAMPLES below directly imply that they are publishing a Proposal list, not a Decision list. All the properties other than AI (number, author, title) are clearly associated with Proposal. AI is ambiguous (could belong to either), but by table association and preamble wording, it should be Proposal AI.
Note this is true for the Promotor's statement, as well. My conclusion is that NONE of the Promotions using this wording listed the Essential Parameter of Decision AI (R1950), though all of them mentioned Proposal AI. (We're safe from recalculation because R107 has the "one week for lack of info" validation window). ASSESSOR EXAMPLE On Mon, 28 Sep 2015, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the > > following proposals. For each decision, the options available to > > Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!).] > > > > *7772 scshunt 3.0 Tie-Breaking Votes > > *7784 omd 0.2 Mammon Machine PROMOTER EXAMPLE > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it. For this decision, the vote collector > is the Assessor, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is > also a valid vote). > > ID Author(s) AI Title > ------------------------------------------------ > 7758* omd 1.0 IADoP Untitling > 7759* G. 3.0 minor Powers v0.2 > Then later in the message: > > > Text of adopted proposals: > > > > ID: 7772 > > Title: Tie-Breaking Votes > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: scshunt > > Co-author(s): > > > > Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by replacing > > The Top Table clearly refers to DECISION AI, not Proposal AI. But the > lower section is labeled "text of adopted proposals" and lists > properties associated with PROPOSALS (authors and co-authors, etc). > Therefore, I find that, if listed this way, the second listing > refers to the AI of the Proposal, not the Decision. > > Therefore, in this case, the ratification is that "such" a proposal > as listed in the lower section (including its AI) is adopted, which > ratifies the AI successfully. The Assessor's Report for proposal 7448 > followed this model, so the AI was ratified at too low of a power to > make the disputed patent award. > > I judge FALSE. > > -G. > > > >
