> The way it should work is for Agora to be satisfied if any of (1) through (4) > are satisfied. That is, Agora is “satisfied” if there were fewer than N > objections and the action was without N objections; OR if there are more than > N supporters and the action was with N support; OR the ratio of supporters to > objectors is greater than or equal to N and the action is to be taken with N > Agoran Consent; etc.
Hang on. I thought that the intention is (1) and (2) and (3). More pedantically: (objection isn't a condition OR there were no objections) AND (support isn't a condition OR there was support) AND (Agoran Consent isn't a condition OR ...). That would work, because Rule 1728 already covers notice: "3. If the action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent was announced at least T earlier.". Is there anything wrong with leaving it that way (which would be accomplished by my proposal)? When I stumbled across this, my guess was that at some point, the rules were re-arranged so that Rule 1728 is responsible everything about Notice, where Rule 2124 was previously, and in the process, (4) was supposed to be removed from 2124. But that's only a guess; I haven't seen the history.
