Player 0 (Boris)

R1, no info yet. I'm Pres. Nominee: Rosa (P2) -- announced publicly per Marek's ask; satisfies Ines's cross-table pick. Committed norms (public): (1) I disclose my 2-passed/1-discarded hand each govt; (2) Chancellor announces their discard aloud (Rosa's addendum, adopted on Ines's ask). No suspects R1. Watch: does Rosa's enacted card match my claimed hand; who pushes back on audit norm. Open: none owed to me yet.

R1, no info yet. I'm Pres. Nominee: Rosa (P2) -- announced publicly per Marek's ask; satisfies Ines's cross-table pick. Committed norms (public): (1) I disclose my 2-passed/1-discarded hand each govt; (2) Chancellor announces discard aloud (Rosa's addendum, adopted on Ines's ask). No suspects R1. Watch: does Rosa's enacted card match my claimed hand; who pushes back on audit norm. Open: none owed to me yet.

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa(P2)=Chancellor, vote 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> discarded F, passed {L,F}; Rosa confirmed enact Liberal/discard Fascist. Stories match, R1 clean, no suspects yet. Otto calibration endorsed: Liberal enact clears nobody. NEW POINT THIS TURN: endorsed Rosa's discard-count norm + stated deck math publicly: 17-card deck minus 1 enacted Lib minus 2 discarded Fas = draw pile holds 11 Lib / 3 Fas (~79% Liberal). Any Fas enactment in next few rounds = near-certain government guilt, not bad luck. Watch for anyone disputing the count. Already on record: full disclosure of my hand/pass; flagged Greta(4)/Tomas(8)/Pavel(7) silence -- no answers yet, they owe reads or stay low-priority suspects by default. R2: Lena(P1) next President. Ask her BEFORE she nominates who she'll pick; watch whether audit/disclosure norms survive her term.

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa(P2)=Chancellor, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> discarded F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib/discarded Fas. Clean round, no suspects yet. ON RECORD: my full hand/pass disclosure; deck math (draw pile ~11 Lib/3 Fas after 2 burned F); Otto calibration (Liberal enact clears nobody); flagged Greta(4)/Tomas(8)/Pavel(7) silence -- still no answers, they owe reads. NEW: Tomas(8) + Nadia(5) both echoed my deck-count point -- consistent with my numbers (4 Fas among 14), nobody disputing the count yet. Watch who disputes it. Lena(1) pressing Pavel(7) on his non-committal Ja pledge -- good pressure, let it play out. R2: Lena next President. Ask her BEFORE she nominates who she'll pick; watch if audit/disclosure norms survive.

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa(P2)=Chancellor, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> discarded F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Clean round. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my full hand/pass disclosure; deck math (~11 Lib/3 Fas in 14); Otto calibration point; flagged Greta(4)/Tomas(8)/Pavel(7) silence on reads -- still unanswered. Pavel(7) still dodging Lena's direct challenge with meta-contract talk instead of answering his own pledge. Tomas/Greta silent on disclosure commitment too. NEW ASK OUT LOUD: Lena(1) is next President -- asked her to name her R2 Chancellor nominee NOW, before voting pressure forms, so we can audit the choice early. Also want her commitment to full three-card disclosure if her government passes. Watch: who disputes my deck count (nobody yet); whether Rosa backs any specific nominee.

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa(P2)=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. Clean. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my full hand disclosure; deck math (~11L/3F in 14); Otto's calibration; Rosa's discard-pile count; Marek's contract push; Lena challenged Pavel, Pavel gave a Nein line + asked Tomas/Greta. STILL UNANSWERED: Otto(P6) -- Greta asked him direct yes/no on disclosure commitment, silent. Tomas(P8) -- Pavel asked him, silent. Greta(P4): committed yes to full disclosure when in gov. My ask pending: Lena(1)=next Pres, name R2 Chancellor pick NOW + commit to 3-card disclosure if her gov passes. No reply yet. Watch: who disputes deck count (nobody yet); whether Rosa backs any specific nominee; Nadia only said 'voting Ja', no read given.

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa(P2)=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. Clean. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my full hand disclosure; deck math (~11L/3F in 14); Otto's calibration; Rosa's discard-pile count; Marek's contract push; Lena challenged Pavel; Pavel's Nein line + asked Tomas/Greta. STILL UNANSWERED: Otto(P6) -- Greta asked yes/no on disclosure commitment twice, silent. Tomas(P8) -- Pavel asked, silent. Greta(P4): committed to full disclosure when in gov. NEW THIS TURN: proposed standing rule -- any Fascist policy enacted => Pres+Chancellor state exact cards immediately, no waiting. Re-pressed Lena(1) for R2 Chancellor pick NOW + disclosure commitment. No reply yet from her. Watch: who disputes deck count (nobody yet); Rosa backing any specific nominee; Nadia only said 'voting Ja', no read given.

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa(P2)=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my full hand disclosure; deck math ~11L/3F in 14; Otto's calibration; Rosa discard count; Marek contract push; my standing rule (Fasc policy => instant Pres+Chanc card reveal); pressed Lena for R2 Chanc pick NOW. Disclosure commitments given: Greta(P4), Otto(P6), Tomas(P8). Pavel asked others -- own commitment unclear. STILL SILENT on commitment: Lena(1) (also owes R2 Chanc pick), Nadia(5). NEW this turn: pointed out holdout list isn't closed -- Nadia never answered the full-disclosure question; Otto/Tomas declared it closed prematurely. Watch: who disputes deck count (nobody); Rosa backing any nominee; Nadia gave no read all window.

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa(P2)=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my full hand disclosure; deck math ~11L/3F in 14; Otto's calibration; Rosa discard count; Marek contract push; my standing rule (Fasc policy => instant Pres+Chanc card reveal); pressed for R2 Chanc pick; holdout list isn't closed -- Nadia never signed. NEW this turn: Lena COMMITTED to full disclosure + named Otto her R2 Chanc pick. Nadia STILL unsigned even after Lena called her out directly -- twice asked, zero answer. Open asks outstanding: Nadia sign-or-refuse (asked 3x now); Otto accept Lena's nomination + commit to enact-as-drawn no-veto; Pavel's own disclosure commitment never stated; Greta/Tomas commitments given earlier but reconfirm cheap if challenged. Watch: who backs Otto gov; Rosa's read on next nominee; anyone disputing deck count (nobody so far).

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa(P2)=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my full hand disclosure; deck math ~11L/3F in 14; Otto calibration; Rosa discard count; Marek contract push; my standing rule (Fasc policy => instant Pres+Chanc card reveal); pressed for R2 Chanc pick; holdout list not closed. NEW: Lena COMMITTED to full disclosure + named Otto her R2 Chanc pick. Nadia STILL unsigned after 3 direct asks -- this turn I set a deadline: no signature by nomination = treat as red flag. Pavel also never stated his own commitment; flagged him alongside Nadia. Open asks outstanding: Nadia sign-or-refuse (deadline now set); Pavel commit; Otto accept Lena's nomination + enact-as-drawn no-veto; Greta/Tomas reconfirm only if challenged. Watch: who backs Otto gov; Rosa's read on next nominee; anyone disputing deck count (nobody so far).

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my hand disclosure; deck ~11L/3F in 14; Otto calibration; Rosa discard count; Marek contract push; standing rule (Fasc policy => instant Pres+Chanc card reveal); pressed for R2 pick. NEW THIS TURN: called out PAVEL as sole unsigned player on disclosure contract (he demanded it of others, never signed himself) -- waiting on his yes/no. CORRECTED: Nadia DID sign at t=137 -- she is NOT a holdout; don't flag her again. Open asks outstanding: Pavel sign-or-refuse (mine); Otto accept Lena's nomination + enact-as-drawn no-veto (Lena+Nadia both asked). Lena committed: full disclosure yes + named Otto her R2 Chanc pick. Watch: who backs Otto gov; anyone disputing deck count (nobody so far); Rosa's read on next nominee.

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. ON RECORD (don't repeat): hand disclosure; deck ~11L/3F in 14; Otto calibration; Rosa discard count; Marek contract push; standing rule (Fasc policy => instant Pres+Chanc card reveal); Pavel sole unsigned holdout call; Nadia signed at t=137 (corrected, NOT holdout). NEW THIS TURN: gave Pavel explicit deadline -- sign or refuse BEFORE Lena nominates; said refusal = yellow flag, signing = clean. Lena committed: full disclosure yes + named Otto her R2 Chanc pick. NOTE: veto NOT unlocked (0 F policies) -- any no-veto pledges are moot this round, don't re-ask. Open asks outstanding: Pavel sign-or-refuse (mine, twice now); Otto confirm acceptance of Lena's nomination. Watch: who backs Otto gov; anyone disputing deck count (nobody); Rosa's read on next nominee.

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. ON RECORD (don't repeat): hand disclosure; deck ~11L/3F; Otto calibration; Rosa discard count; standing rule (Fasc policy => instant Pres+Chanc card reveal); Pavel holdout call resolved (Nadia signed t=137). NEW THIS TURN: Lena previously committed to Otto as R2 Chanc pick + full disclosure -- but nominated MAREK instead. Called the flip out loud, asked why. No answer yet -- she owes one. If no good reason: mild flag on Lena, and check if Marek lobbied her privately. OUTSTANDING: Pavel sign-or-refuse contract -- deadline was BEFORE nomination; he hasn't signed publicly. Refusal = yellow flag per my own stated rule. Still owed. Open asks: (1) Lena why Marek over Otto, (2) Pavel sign/refuse status, (3) Marek: will you pledge full hand disclosure if elected? Veto NOT unlocked (0 F policies) -- moot this round. Watch: who backs Lena-Marek gov; Marek's disclosure pledge; Rosa's read on next nominee.

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my hand disclosure; deck ~11L/3F (2 F burned); standing rule (Fasc policy => instant Pres+Chanc card reveal); Pavel signed contract t=35 R2; Nadia signed t=137; Tomas/Greta/Otto all signed. R2: Lena=Pres. She publicly committed (t=122) to Otto as Chanc pick + full disclosure, then nominated MAREK instead. Flip called out by Marek t=3 and me -- NO ANSWER from Lena yet. If none: mild flag on Lena; check whether Marek lobbied her privately. Open asks: (1) Lena: why Marek over Otto? (2) Marek: pledge full hand disclosure if elected -- I asked this turn. (3) Otto never answered Lena's accept/decline nomination question from t=127/143. Veto NOT unlocked (0 F policies). No powers live yet. Watch: who backs Lena-Marek gov; Marek's disclosure pledge; Rosa's read next round.

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my hand disclosure; deck ~11L/3F (2 F burned); standing rule (Fasc policy => instant Pres+Chanc card reveal); Pavel/Nadia/Tomas/Greta/Otto signed contract. R2: Lena=Pres, nominated MAREK after publicly committing to Otto (t=122). Flip called out by me + Marek; Lena ANSWERED t=3: claims Otto ignored her accept/precommit ask via 3 prompts (hers, Nadia's, Ines'). Plausible -- watch if Otto disputes it. Mild flag stays until Otto confirms/denies silence. Open asks: (1) Marek still has NOT answered my t=2 pledge request: full enacted+discarded pair announced on enactment, no tailoring. He answered Lena but skipped me -- press now. (2) Otto: confirm whether he actually ignored Lena x3, or dispute. Veto NOT unlocked (0 F policies). No powers live. Watch: vote pattern R2 gov; Rosa's read next round; who lobbied Lena privately pre-flip.

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my hand disclosure; deck ~11L/3F (2 F burned); standing rule (Fasc policy => instant Pres+Chanc card reveal); Pavel/Nadia/Tomas/Greta/Otto signed contract. R2: Lena=Pres, nominated MAREK after committing to Otto publicly. Lena's answer re flip: Otto ignored 3 prompts (hers, Nadia's, Ines'). Otto t=1 ADMITS silence ('not answering fast enough') but claims he'd have accepted -- post-hoc commitment, weak; mild flag downgraded but not cleared. Otto did NOT dispute the 3 ignored prompts -> likely true. Open asks: (1) Marek STILL hasn't answered my t=2 pledge: announce enacted+discarded pair on enactment, no tailoring. Otto t=2-3 also demanding it. Pressed again this turn. (2) Otto: does 'would have accepted' = accepts NOW if renominated? Unresolved. Veto NOT unlocked (0 F policies). No powers live. Watch: R2 vote pattern (who Neins a Lena/Marek gov); Rosa's read next round; whether Marek answers before vote or dodges again -- dodge = soft Nein signal.

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my hand disclosure; deck ~11L/3F (2 F burned); standing rule (Fasc policy => instant Pres+Chanc card reveal); Pavel/Nadia/Tomas/Greta/Otto signed contract. R2: Lena=Pres, nominated MAREK after committing to Otto publicly. Flip story: Otto ignored 3 prompts (Lena's, Nadia's, Ines'), admitted silence t=1 ('not answering fast enough') but claims he'd have accepted -- post-hoc, weak; mild flag, not cleared. RESOLVED: Marek answered my t=2 pledge (t=2 this window): seat accepted, contract signed, will announce received pair + discard BEFORE enacting, no veto games; demanded Lena announce her draw/discard FIRST -- good sequencing, holds both honest. Nadia locked Ja. STILL OPEN: Otto -- does 'would have accepted' = accepts NOW if renominated? Ask once more, then drop it. My position: JA on Lena/Marek. If Fasc policy comes out of this gov: per standing rule, instant card reveal from BOTH Lena and Marek before any draw-blame talk. Deck Liberal-heavy (~11L/3F), so Fasc enactment here = strong gov-guilt signal, not bad luck. Watch: who Neins this gov (esp. Otto); Rosa's read next round.

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my hand disclosure; deck ~11L/3F (2 F burned); standing rule (Fasc policy => instant Pres+Chanc card reveal); Pavel/Nadia/Tomas/Greta/Otto signed contract. R2: Lena=Pres, nominated MAREK after committing to Otto publicly. Otto ignored 3 prompts (Lena's, Nadia's, Ines'), admitted t=1 he was slow answering but claims post-hoc he'd have accepted -- weak, not cleared. RESOLVED: Marek accepted seat, signed contract, will announce received pair + discard BEFORE enacting, no veto games; demanded Lena announce draw/discard FIRST -- good sequencing. Nadia/Ines/Greta/Pavel locked Ja. Greta re-asked Lena to confirm sequence at vote time -- Lena owes that confirmation. MY STATUS this window: Ja locked on Lena/Marek (said out loud). STILL OPEN: Otto -- 'would have accepted' = accepts NOW if renominated? Ask once more, then drop it. If Fasc policy comes out of gov: instant card reveal from BOTH Lena+Marek per standing rule before draw-blame talk. Deck ~11L/3F so Fasc enactment = strong gov-guilt signal, not bad luck. Watch: who Neins this gov (esp. Otto); Rosa's read next round.

R1 done: Me=Pres, Rosa=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my hand disclosure; deck ~11L/3F (2 F burned); standing rule (Fasc policy => instant Pres+Chanc card reveal); Pavel/Nadia/Tomas/Greta/Otto signed contract. R2: Lena=Pres, nominated MAREK after committing to Otto publicly. Marek accepted seat, signed contract, will announce pair+discard BEFORE enacting, no veto games; demanded Lena announce draw/discard FIRST -- Lena confirmed at t=1, good. NEW THIS WINDOW: Ines STILL hasn't signed disclosure contract -- everyone else has. I called her out t~now: sign or explain before vote; also asked her to state Ja/Nein intent in advance. No answer yet -- OWES ME. Otto ignored 3 prompts earlier (Lena/Nadia/Ines), claims post-hoc he'd have accepted -- weak, not cleared. Lena re-prompted him t=2 to lock Ja. Watch his vote. MY STATUS: Ja locked on Lena/Marek (said aloud). STILL OPEN: Ines's signature/explanation; Otto's final Ja. If Fasc policy enacted from gov: instant card reveal BOTH Lena+Marek per standing rule before draw-blame talk. Deck ~11L/3F => Fasc enactment = strong gov-guilt signal, not bad luck. Watch: who Neins (esp. Otto, Ines); Rosa's read next round.

R1: Me=Pres, Rosa=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my hand disclosure; deck ~11L/3F (2F burned); standing rule (Fasc policy => instant card reveal from BOTH Pres+Chanc); ALL 9 others signed disclosure contract incl. Ines (t=89) and Pavel (t=35). R2: Lena=Pres. Committed to Otto publicly (t=122), switched to MAREK citing Otto's 3x silence (t=127/143 + Ines prompt). Marek accepted+signed+no-veto-games, demands Lena announce draw/discard FIRST -- Lena confirmed (t=75). MY STATUS: Ja locked on Lena/Marek, said aloud. OPEN: Otto -- pressed by me this window on WHY silent through 3 prompts + confirm Ja (Lena also asked t=82). No answer yet, OWES table. His post-hoc 'I'd have accepted' is unverifiable (Greta flagged t=96). Not cleared. If Fasc policy enacted from Lena/Marek gov: instant dual card reveal per standing rule BEFORE any draw-blame talk. Deck ~11L/3F => Fasc enactment = strong gov-guilt signal. Watch: Otto's vote + his answer; Rosa's read next round.

R1: Me=Pres, Rosa=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my hand disclosure; deck ~11L/3F (2F burned); standing rule (Fasc policy => instant card reveal from BOTH Pres+Chanc); ALL 9 others signed disclosure contract incl. Ines (t=89), Pavel (t=35). R2: Lena=Pres. Committed to Otto publicly (t=122), switched to MAREK citing Otto's 3x silence (t=127/143). Marek accepted+signed+no-veto-games, demands Lena announce draw/discard FIRST -- Lena confirmed (t=75). MY STATUS: Ja locked on Lena/Marek, said aloud. This turn (t~161): gave Otto final pre-vote deadline -- answer or his vote gets weighed as data. OTTO: silent through 3 prompts (Lena t=?, Nadia, Ines) + mine this window. Post-hoc 'I'd have accepted' unverifiable (Greta flagged t=96). TOP SUSPECT pending answer. Watch his actual vote. If Fasc policy enacted from Lena/Marek gov: instant dual card reveal per standing rule BEFORE draw-blame talk. Deck ~11L/3F => Fasc enactment = strong gov-guilt signal. Next round watch: Rosa's reads; term limits reset after me/Lena.

R1: Me=Pres, Rosa=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my hand disclosure; deck ~11L/3F (2F burned); standing rule: Fasc policy => instant card reveal from BOTH Pres+Chanc BEFORE draw-blame talk. All 9 others signed contract incl. Ines(t=89), Pavel(t=35). R2: Lena=Pres. Committed to Otto publicly (t=122), switched to MAREK citing Otto's 3x silence. Marek accepted+signed+no-veto-games, demands Lena announce draw/discard FIRST -- Lena confirmed (t=75). I voted JA on Lena/Marek. OTTO: silent through 3 prompts (Lena/Nadia/Ines) + my direct question (t=103); post-hoc 'I'd have accepted' unverifiable (Greta flagged t=96). TOP SUSPECT. Watch his vote now that conditions met -- flip to Nein after confirming = red flag. If Fasc enacted from Lena/Marek gov: invoke dual card reveal rule instantly. Next round: presidency rotates past me/Lena term limits; watch Rosa's reads + who Lena targets if power comes up.

R1: Me=Pres, Rosa=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my hand disclosure; deck ~11L/3F (2F burned); standing rule: Fasc policy => instant card reveal from BOTH Pres+Chanc BEFORE draw-blame talk. All 9 signed contract incl. Ines(t=89), Pavel(t=35). R2: Lena=Pres, Marek=Chanc -> LIBERAL enacted. Both govs clean so far. Marek demanded Lena announce draw/discard first — verify she did before crediting. OTTO: silent through 3 prompts (Lena/Nadia/Ines) + my direct Q (t=103); post-hoc 'I'd have accepted' unverifiable (Greta t=96). TOP SUSPECT. Check his R2 vote if tally becomes known; flip to Nein after conditions met = red flag. NEXT: term limits hit Lena+Marek; presidency rotates past me. Ask group NOW who they want as R3 gov BEFORE nominations lock — get commitments pre-vote. Watch Rosa's reads; she enacted lib but stay neutral. If Fasc ever enacted: invoke dual card reveal rule instantly.

R1: Me=Pres, Rosa=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Stories match. R2: Lena=Pres, Marek=Chanc -> Lib enacted. Lena disclosed F,L,F disc-F passed {L,F}; Marek's story matched (verify his exact words were pre-enactment). Two govs clean. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my R1 hand disclosure; deck ~11L/3F (2F burned); standing rule: Fasc policy enacted => BOTH Pres+Chanc reveal cards BEFORE draw-blame talk. All signed incl. Ines, Pavel. OTTO: silent through 3 prompts + my direct Q; post-hoc 'would've accepted veto' unverifiable. TOP SUSPECT. Check his R2 vote if tally known; Nein flip after conditions met = red flag. R3: term limits hit Lena+Marek => neither can be Chancellor; presidency rotates past me. ASK GROUP NOW for R3 gov commitments pre-nomination. Watch Rosa's reads; neutral so far.

R1: me=Pres, Rosa=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena=Pres, Marek=Chanc, 10/0 Ja -> Lib enacted (2L/0F). Lena disc F,L,F disc-F passed {L,F}; Marek matched. NOTE: Marek promised pre-enactment disclosure but both disclosures came AFTER enactment -- flagged publicly, no harm this round since stories matched. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my R1 hand; deck ~11L/3F live (2F burned); standing rule: Fasc policy => BOTH Pres+Chanc reveal BEFORE draw-blame talk. SUSPECTS: Otto top -- silent through 3 nomination prompts + my direct Q, post-hoc 'would've accepted' unverifiable; Ja locked after conditions met. No outcome evidence yet. R3 setup: presidency -> Rosa (rotation); term limits bar Lena+Marek from Chancellor. Asked Rosa publicly: pre-commit to full 3-card draw announcement first, then nominee's pair. Watch her answer. Open Qs owed: none pending against me. Otto owes explanation of nomination silence (answered once, 'sloppiness' -- weak). Next watch: Rosa's nominee pick; if Fasc policy lands, enforce both-reveal rule immediately.

R1: me=Pres, Rosa=Chanc, 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F, passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena=Pres, Marek=Chanc, 10/0 Ja -> Lib enacted (2L/0F). Lena drew F,L,F disc-F passed {L,F}; Marek matched. NOTE: Marek promised pre-enactment disclosure but both disclosures landed AFTER enactment -- flagged publicly, no harm since stories matched. DECK MATH (checkable): 6 cards drawn so far = 2L enacted + 4F discarded (all four discards Fascist per announced hands). Standard 17-deck => live pile 11 = 4L/7F, i.e. FASCIST-heavy (~64% F), NOT Liberal-heavy as Greta claimed t=70ish. Corrected publicly this window. Consequence: next gov drawing {F,F} is quite plausible without any guilt -- adjust blame priors accordingly. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my R1 hand; standing rule: Fasc policy => BOTH Pres+Chanc reveal BEFORE draw-blame talk; Marek timing flag. SUSPECTS: Otto top -- silent through nomination prompts + my direct Q, post-hoc 'would've accepted' unverifiable. No outcome evidence yet. R3 setup: presidency -> Rosa; term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chancellor. Asked Rosa: pre-commit full 3-card draw announcement first, then nominee's pair. Watch whether she answers Greta's nominee-pick request AND my disclosure protocol together. Open Qs owed: Rosa owes pre-commitment answer. Otto owes better explanation of nomination silence ('sloppiness' was weak). Next watch: Rosa's nominee pick + her disclosure commitment.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). Lena drew F,L,F disc-F; Marek matched. Marek promised PRE-enactment disclosure but both landed AFTER -- flagged publicly t=28, no harm. DECK MATH (corrected): 17-deck 11L/6F; burned 4F, enacted 2L => live 11 = 9L/2F. LIBERAL-heavy (~82%L). Single F enactment soon = likely luck, NOT guilt signal. Prior scratchpad 'fascist-heavy' was my arithmetic error, never stated publicly. CONTRACT: everyone signed incl. Pavel (t=35 R2) & Ines (t=89). Closed. ON RECORD (don't repeat): my R1 hand; Marek timing flag; deck-math sharpening (this turn). SUSPECTS: Otto top -- silent through 3 nomination prompts + my direct Q, post-hoc 'would've accepted' unverifiable ('sloppiness' excuse weak). No outcome evidence yet. R3: presidency -> Rosa; term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chancellors: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Nadia,Tomas,Otto. Urged Rosa pick untested name for data coverage. OWED: Rosa owes nominee pick + reasoning (Greta asked t=36); watch if she also commits to hand-first sequencing. WATCH: if F policy lands, demand Pres+Chanc disclosures BEFORE draw-blame talk.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). Lena drew F,L,F disc-F; Marek matched. Both disclosures landed AFTER enactment despite Marek's pre-enactment promise -- flagged publicly t=28, closed. DECK MATH (stated publicly t=42): live 11 = 9L/2F (~82% Lib). Lone F enactment soon = likely luck, not guilt signal. CONTRACT: all signed incl. Pavel (t=35 R2), Ines (t=89). Closed. ON RECORD (never repeat): my R1 hand; Marek timing flag; deck math; Otto silence-through-3-prompts + my direct Q t=103 (he answered 'sloppiness' -- weak, unverifiable). SUSPECTS: Otto top, behavior-only evidence, no outcome link yet. R3: presidency -> Rosa; term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chancellors: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Nadia,Tomas,Otto. OWED: Rosa owes nominee+reasoning (Greta t=36) AND my ask this turn: hand-first sequencing commit + untested Chancellor pick. WATCH: if F policy lands, demand Pres+Chanc disclosures BEFORE draw-blame talk.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). Lena drew F,L,F disc-F; Marek matched. Both disclosed AFTER enactment despite Marek's pre-enactment promise -- flagged publicly t=28, closed. DECK MATH (stated publicly t=42): live 11 = 9L/2F (~82% Lib). Lone F enactment soon = likely luck, not guilt signal. CONTRACT: all 10 signed (Pavel t=35 R2, Ines t=89 R2). Closed -- stop relitigating. ON RECORD (never repeat): my R1 hand; Marek timing flag; deck math; Otto silence-through-3-prompts + my Q t=103 ('sloppiness' answer). SUSPECTS: Otto top -- behavior-only, no outcome link. Pattern framing: silence through prompts THEN acceptance only after seat moved = costless retroactive yes. NEW this turn: demanded concrete yes/no on whether he'd have pre-committed to enacting-no-veto in real time. If he answers vaguely or refuses, escalate; if clean, downgrade. R3: presidency -> Rosa; term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chancellors: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Nadia,Tomas,Otto. OWED TO ME: Rosa owes nominee+reasoning (Greta t=36) + my asks t=49 (hand-first sequencing commit, untested Chancellor pick). WATCH: if F policy lands, demand Pres+Chanc disclosures BEFORE draw-blame talk. Note lone F soon likely luck per deck math.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). Lena drew F,L,F disc-F; Marek matched. Both disclosed AFTER enactment despite Marek's pre-enactment promise -- flagged publicly t=28, closed. DECK MATH (stated publicly t=42): live 11 = 9L/2F (~82% Lib). Lone F enactment soon = likely luck, not guilt signal. CONTRACT: all 10 signed (Pavel t=35 R2, Ines t=89 R2). Closed -- stop relitigating. ON RECORD (never repeat): my R1 hand; Marek timing flag; deck math; Otto silence-through-3-prompts + 'sloppiness' Q t=103; my asks to Rosa t=49/t=2 (hand-first sequencing, untested Chancellor). NEW THIS TURN (t~4): stated my vote standard -- Ja on any first-time Chancellor nominee under Rosa; anyone Neining an untested gov't must give a named reason. Frame via deck math: Ja is cheap while 9L/2F live. SUSPECTS: Otto top -- behavior-only, no outcome link. Silence through prompts THEN acceptance only after seat moved = costless retroactive yes. Awaiting his concrete yes/no on pre-committing to enact-no-veto in real time. Vague/refusal = escalate; clean = downgrade. R3: presidency -> Rosa; term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chancellors: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Nadia,Tomas,Otto. OWED TO ME: Rosa owes nominee+reasoning + hand-first sequencing commit; Otto owes yes/no. WATCH: if F policy lands, demand Pres+Chanc disclosures BEFORE draw-blame talk.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). Both disclosed AFTER enactment despite pre-promise -- flagged t=28, closed. DECK MATH (on record t=42): live 11 = 9L/2F (~82% Lib). Lone F enactment soon = likely luck, not guilt. CONTRACT: all 10 signed (Pavel t=35, Ines t=89). Closed -- stop relitigating. ON RECORD (never repeat): my R1 hand; Marek timing flag; deck math; Otto silence-through-prompts + 'sloppiness' Q t=103; asks to Rosa t=49/t=2; my vote standard (Ja on untested Chancellors, Nein needs named reason). OTTO ANSWERED t~1: retroactive yes ('had I replied in time') to enact-no-veto. Conditional downgrade ONLY -- words cheap, retroactive pattern continues. Judge him on NEXT real-time vote/nomination. Said publicly this turn. ROSA COMMITTED t~2/t~3: announce full 3-card draw before Chanc acts + nominee=Nadia. Satisfies my ask. Endorsed this turn. R3: presidency -> Rosa; term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chancellors: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Nadia,Tomas,Otto. WATCH: if F policy lands, demand Pres+Chanc disclosures BEFORE draw-blame talk. One-card enactments under 9L/2F deck = luck, not auto-guilt.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). Both disclosed AFTER enactment despite pre-promise -- flagged t=28, closed. DECK MATH (on record t=42): live 11 = 9L/2F (~82% Lib). Lone F enactment soon = likely luck, not guilt. CONTRACT: all 10 signed (Pavel t=35, Ines t=89). Closed -- stop relitigating. ON RECORD (never repeat): my R1 hand; Marek timing flag; deck math; Otto silence-through-prompts + 'sloppiness' Q t=103; asks to Rosa t=49/t=2; vote standard (Ja on untested Chancellors, Nein needs named reason). OTTO ANSWERED t~1: retroactive yes ('had I replied in time') to enact-no-veto. Conditional downgrade ONLY -- words cheap, retroactive pattern continues. Judge him on NEXT real-time vote/nomination. Said publicly. ROSA COMMITTED t=2/t=3: announce full 3-card draw pre-pass + nominee=Nadia. Satisfies my asks. Endorsed publicly. Lena's three-Fascist-announcement press also closed by same commitment. R3: presidency -> Rosa (seat order); term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chancellors: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Nadia,Tomas,Otto. WATCH: if F policy lands, demand Pres+Chanc disclosures BEFORE draw-blame talk. One-card F enactment under 9L/2F deck = luck, not auto-guilt. Nothing new this window: all open conditions closed; stay silent.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). Both disclosed AFTER enactment despite pre-promise -- flagged t=28, closed. DECK MATH (on record t=42): live 11 = 9L/2F (~82% Lib). Lone F enactment soon = likely luck, not guilt. CONTRACT: all 10 signed (Pavel t=35, Ines t=89). Closed -- stop relitigating. ON RECORD (never repeat): my R1 hand; Marek timing flag; deck math; Otto silence-through-prompts + 'sloppiness' Q t=103; asks to Rosa t=49/t=2; vote standard (Ja on untested Chancellors, Nein needs named reason). OTTO ANSWERED t~1: retroactive yes ('had I replied in time') to enact-no-veto. Conditional downgrade ONLY -- words cheap, retroactive pattern continues. Judge him on NEXT real-time vote/nomination. Said publicly. ROSA COMMITTED t=2/t=3: announce full 3-card draw pre-pass + nominee=Nadia. Satisfies my asks. Endorsed publicly. Lena's three-Fascist-announcement press also closed by same commitment. R3: presidency -> Rosa (seat order); term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chancellors: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Nadia,Tomas,Otto. WATCH: if F policy lands, demand Pres+Chanc disclosures BEFORE draw-blame talk. One-card F enactment under 9L/2F deck = luck, not auto-guilt. Rosa's t=1 math correction consistent w/ my deck math -- no conflict. Nadia pre-commitment to enact-as-received + announce pair = good, endorse silently. Nothing new this window: all open conditions closed; stay silent.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). Both disclosed AFTER enactment despite pre-promise -- flagged t=28, closed. DECK MATH (on record t=42): live 11 = 9L/2F (~82% Lib). Lone F enactment soon = likely luck, not guilt. CONTRACT: all 10 signed (Pavel t=35, Ines t=89). Closed -- stop relitigating. ON RECORD (never repeat): my R1 hand; Marek timing flag; deck math; Otto silence + 'sloppiness' Q t=103; asks to Rosa t=49/t=2; vote standard (Ja on untested Chancellors, Nein needs named reason). OTTO ANSWERED t~1: retroactive yes to enact-no-veto. Conditional downgrade ONLY -- judge on NEXT real-time vote/nomination. Said publicly. ROSA COMMITTED t=2/t=3: announce full 3-card draw pre-pass + nominee=Nadia. Endorsed publicly. Nadia pre-commitment to enact-as-received + announce pair = endorse silently. R3: presidency -> Rosa (seat order); term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chancellors: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Nadia,Tomas,Otto. WATCH: if F policy lands, demand Pres+Chanc disclosures BEFORE draw-blame talk. One-card F under 9L/2F deck = luck, not auto-guilt. Otto t=1-3 procedural fix (announce-before-enact) = refinement of Rosa/Nadia commitments already on table -- nothing new from me. All open conditions closed. STAY SILENT.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). Both disclosed AFTER enactment despite pre-promise -- flagged t=28, closed. DECK MATH (on record t=42): live 11 = 9L/2F (~82% Lib). Lone F enactment soon = likely luck, not guilt. CONTRACT: all 10 signed (Pavel t=35, Ines t=89). Closed -- stop relitigating. ON RECORD (never repeat): my R1 hand; Marek timing flag; deck math; Otto silence + 'sloppiness' Q t=103; asks to Rosa t=49/t=2; vote standard (Ja on untested Chancellors, Nein needs named reason). OTTO ANSWERED t~1: retroactive yes to enact-no-veto. Conditional downgrade ONLY -- judge on NEXT real-time vote/nomination. Said publicly. ROSA COMMITTED t=2/t=3: announce full 3-card draw pre-pass + nominee=Nadia. Endorsed publicly. Nadia pre-commitment to enact-as-received + announce pair = endorse silently. R3: presidency -> Rosa (seat order); term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chancellors: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Nadia,Tomas,Otto. WATCH: if F policy lands, demand Pres+Chanc disclosures BEFORE draw-blame talk. One-card F under 9L/2F deck = luck, not auto-guilt. Otto t=1-3 procedural fix (announce-before-enact) = refinement of Rosa/Nadia commitments already on table -- nothing new from me. All open conditions closed. STAY SILENT.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). Both disclosed AFTER enactment despite pre-promise -- flagged t=28, closed. DECK MATH (on record t=42): live 11 = 9L/2F (~82% Lib). Lone F enactment soon = likely luck, not guilt. CONTRACT: all 10 signed (Pavel t=35, Ines t=89). Closed -- stop relitigating. ON RECORD (never repeat): my R1 hand; Marek timing flag; deck math; Otto silence + 'sloppiness' Q t=103; asks to Rosa t=49/t=2; vote standard (Ja on untested Chancellors, Nein needs named reason); endorsed Rosa's pre-draw disclosure commitment + Nadia nominee. OTTO t~1: retroactive yes enact-no-veto, conditional -- judge on NEXT real-time vote/nomination. Said publicly. ROSA t=2/3 locked: full 3-card announce pre-pass, nominee=Nadia. Otto's verify-then-enact = refinement, nothing new. R3: presidency -> Rosa; term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chancellors: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Nadia,Tomas,Otto. WATCH: if F policy lands, demand Pres+Chanc disclosures BEFORE draw-blame talk. One-card F under 9L/2F deck = luck, not auto-guilt. All open conditions closed. STAY SILENT unless new objection or F policy lands.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). Disclosed after enactment -- flagged t=28, closed. DECK MATH (on record t=42): live 11 = 9L/2F (~82% Lib). Lone F enactment soon = likely luck, not guilt. CONTRACT: all 10 signed (Pavel t=35, Ines t=89). Closed. ON RECORD: my R1 hand; Marek timing flag; deck math; Otto silence+'sloppiness' Q t=103; asks to Rosa t=49/t=2; vote standard (Ja untested Chanc, Nein needs named reason); endorsed Rosa pre-draw disclosure + Nadia nominee. ROSA locked: full 3-card announce pre-pass, nominee=Nadia. Otto verify-then-enact = refinement only. R3: Pres=Rosa, Chanc nom=Nadia. Term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chancellors: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Nadia,Tomas,Otto. WATCH: if F policy lands, demand Pres+Chanc disclosures BEFORE draw-blame talk. One F under 9L/2F = luck, not auto-guilt. All open conditions closed. STAY SILENT unless new objection or F policy lands.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). Disclosed after enactment -- flagged t=28, closed. DECK MATH (on record t=42): live 11 = 9L/2F (~82% Lib). Lone F enactment soon = likely luck, not guilt. CONTRACT: all 10 signed (Pavel t=35, Ines t=89). Closed. ON RECORD: my R1 hand; Marek timing flag; deck math; Otto silence+'sloppiness' Q t=103; asks to Rosa t=49/t=2; vote standard (Ja untested Chanc, Nein needs named reason); endorsed Rosa pre-draw disclosure + Nadia nominee. ROSA locked: full 3-card announce pre-pass, nominee=Nadia. Otto verify-then-enact = refinement only. R3: Pres=Rosa, Chanc nom=Nadia. Term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chancellors: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Nadia,Tomas,Otto. WATCH: if F policy lands, demand Pres+Chanc disclosures BEFORE draw-blame talk. One F under 9L/2F = luck, not auto-guilt. t=1+: Nadia pressing Rosa on card-finality -- Rosa's question to answer, not mine. No new objection from me. All open conditions closed. STAY SILENT unless new objection or F policy lands.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). Disclosed after enactment -- flagged t=28, closed. DECK MATH (on record t=42): live 11 = 9L/2F (~82% Lib). Lone F enactment soon = likely luck, not guilt. CONTRACT: all 10 signed (Pavel t=35, Ines t=89). Closed. ON RECORD: my R1 hand; Marek timing flag; deck math; Otto silence+'sloppiness' Q t=103; asks to Rosa t=49/t=2; vote standard (Ja untested Chanc, Nein needs named reason); endorsed Rosa pre-draw disclosure + Nadia nominee. ROSA locked: full 3-card announce pre-pass, nominee=Nadia. Otto verify-then-enact = refinement only. R3: Pres=Rosa, Chanc nom=Nadia. Term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chancellors: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Nadia,Tomas,Otto. WATCH: if F policy lands, demand Pres+Chanc disclosures BEFORE draw-blame talk. One F under 9L/2F = luck, not auto-guilt. t=1+: Rosa/Nadia card-finality settled by Rosa herself -- no open question left for me. All conditions closed. STAY SILENT unless new objection or F policy lands.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). Disclosed post-enactment -- flagged t=28, closed. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 Ja pending; I voted Ja. All conditions closed pre-vote: Rosa full-draw announce pre-pass + finality confirmed t=14; Nadia no-veto + pair-first disclosure; mismatch rule signed both sides (Otto's fix); verify-then-enact locked. DECK MATH (on record t=42): live 11 = 9L/2F (~82% Lib). Lone F enactment = luck, not auto-guilt. If F lands under Rosa-Nadia: scrutinize disclosures BEFORE draw-blame talk; demand exact hands from both. CONTRACT: all 10 signed (Pavel t=35, Ines t=89). Closed. ON RECORD already: my R1 hand; Marek timing flag; deck math; Otto silence Qs (t=103, t=54) -- answered 'yes would have committed'; coverage ask to Rosa t=49 -- met via Nadia. Term limits bar Lena+Marek as next Chanc. Untried Chancellors left after Nadia: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Tomas,Otto. NEXT PRES after R3 = Player 3 (Ines). Ask early: disclosure commitment + nominee reasoning pre-draw. WATCH: any F enactment -> immediate Pres+Chanc hand demands; check story consistency vs prior rounds.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). Disclosed post-enactment -- flagged t=28, closed. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 Ja -> F ENACTED (2L/1F). I voted Ja. Pre-vote commitments were all signed: Rosa full-draw announce pre-pass + finality t=14; Nadia no-veto + pair-first disclosure; mismatch rule signed both sides (Otto's fix); verify-then-enact locked. NOW: F landed exactly where pre-commitments existed -- if either hand claim contradicts the announced protocol, that's the smoking gun, not deck luck. DECK MATH (on record t=42): live was 9L/2F (~82% Lib) at R3 draw. Lone F = possible luck BUT two committed disclosure protocols make luck the LAST explanation to check, not first. ASKED NOW (t=this): Rosa exact 3-card draw + discard + pair passed; Nadia exact pair received + card enacted. Both owe answer before any 'bad draw' talk. CONTRACT: all 10 signed (Pavel t=35, Ines t=89). Closed. ON RECORD already: my R1 hand; Marek timing flag; deck math; Otto silence Qs (t=103,t=54) answered 'yes would have committed'; coverage ask to Rosa t=49 met via Nadia. Term limits bar Lena+Marek as next Chanc. NEXT PRES after R3 = Player 3 (Ines). Ask Ines early: disclosure commitment + nominee reasoning pre-draw. Untried Chanc left: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Tomas,Otto. WATCH: cross-check Rosa/Nadia claims vs each other AND vs R1/R2 patterns. If stories conflict -> narrow culprit. If both consistent -> bad draw, move on but note who benefits.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 Ja -> F ENACTED (2L/1F). I voted Ja. Pre-commitments signed: Rosa full-draw announce pre-pass t=14; Nadia no-veto+pair-first; mismatch rule signed both sides. F landed exactly where protocols existed -> silence/conflict = smoking gun, not deck luck. DECK MATH on record t=42: live was 9L/2F (~82% Lib) at R3 draw. MY ASKS outstanding: Rosa exact 3-draw+discard+pair passed; Nadia exact pair received+card enacted. Both owe before 'bad draw' talk. NEW THIS TURN: added consequence -- no disclosure by end of claims => I vote Nein on ANY gov containing Rosa or Nadia until they talk. CONTRACT: all 10 signed (Pavel t=35, Ines t=89). Closed. ON RECORD already: my R1 hand; Marek timing flag; deck math; Otto silence Qs answered; coverage ask met via Nadia. Lena/Greta/Otto now hammering same disclosure Q -- don't repeat their wording. Term limits bar Lena+Marek as next Chanc. NEXT PRES after R3 = Player 3 (Ines). Ask Ines: disclosure commitment + nominee reasoning pre-draw. Untried Chanc left: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Tomas,Otto. WATCH: cross-check Rosa vs Nadia claims arithmetically AND vs R1 pattern (Rosa honest R1). If consistent -> bad draw, note who benefits. If conflict -> narrow culprit.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib, disclosed fully. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib (2L/0F). R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 Ja -> F ENACTED (2L/1F). Both signed protocols (Rosa full-draw announce, Nadia pair-first/no-veto); F landed exactly where commitments existed -> silence/conflict = smoking gun. DECK: live ~9L/2F at R3 draw (~82% Lib). NOTE: Otto t=1 claims NO 3F draw possible => Nadia's pair had a Lib => 'enacted what I received' dead. I did NOT independently verify max-2F-in-deck (publicly 5 F unaccounted across deck8+discard6) -- don't assert his pin as fact, lean on demand-for-hands instead. OUTSTANDING ASKS: Rosa exact 3-draw+discard+pair; Nadia exact pair received+card enacted. Rosa silent past my deadline (Otto t=3 confirms crickets). CONSEQUENCE ON RECORD: no disclosure by end of claims => I vote Nein on ANY gov containing Rosa or Nadia, all game. Rosa contrast: fully honest/disclosed R1 -> current silence is a choice, not caution. NEXT PRES = Player 3 (Ines). Asked Ines: pre-commit BEFORE drawing -- announce full 3-draw + discard publicly. Term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chanc: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Tomas,Otto. ON RECORD already: my R1 hand, Marek timing flag, deck math, coverage ask met via Nadia, Nein vow. Lena/Greta/Otto hammering same disclosure Q -- don't repeat their wording. WATCH: cross-check Rosa vs Nadia claims arithmetically + vs R1 pattern. Consistent -> bad draw, note beneficiaries. Conflict -> narrow culprit. Contract signed by all 10 (Pavel t=35, Ines t=89).

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib, disclosed fully. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 Ja -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 Ja -> F ENACTED. Rosa silent past my deadline (Otto t=3 crickets). Nadia t=now claims: Rosa drew F,F+L, discarded L, passed F,F -> she 'had' to enact F. MY NEW POINT ON RECORD: 'exactly ONE hand clears Rosa' is FALSE as stated -- Rosa drawing F,F,L and discarding an F (passing {F,L}) ALSO clears Rosa but puts the F-over-L CHOICE on Nadia. The two stories diverge on exactly who had agency; only Rosa's disclosure discriminates. Nadia picked the self-exculpatory branch unprompted -- convenient, not proof. DEMAND: Rosa confirm/deny the 2F+1L / discard-L hand card-for-card THIS window. Match -> bad-luck draw, note beneficiaries, move on. Silence/conflict -> culprit narrowed to those two. STANDING VOW: Nein on ANY gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent clean disclosure. DECK: ~9L/2F live at R3 (~82% Lib); Otto's no-3F pin unverified by me -- lean on demand-for-hands not his math. NEXT PRES = Ines. Asked Ines pre-commit: announce full 3-draw+discard before/with enactment. Term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chanc: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Tomas,Otto. ALREADY ON RECORD (don't repeat): my R1 full hand, Marek timing flag, deck math, Nein vow, coverage ask (met via Nadia), contract signed by all 10 (Pavel t=35, Ines t=89). WATCH: cross-check Rosa vs Nadia arithmetically + vs R1 pattern when/if Rosa speaks.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 Ja -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin (Otto t=33). Nadia t=68 claims Rosa drew 2F+1L, discarded L, passed F,F ('no choice'). MY COUNTER ON RECORD this window: second branch exists -- Rosa discards F, passes {F,L}, guilt shifts to Nadia's enactment choice. Only Rosa's hand discriminates; Nadia picked self-exculpatory branch unprompted. DEMAND: Rosa disclose 3-draw+discard THIS window. Match Nadia's F,F receipt -> bad luck (~2/9 draws), note beneficiaries, move on. Conflict/silence -> culprits = Rosa+Nadia pair. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent clean disclosure. DECK: ~9L/2F live (~82% Lib); Otto's 'no 3F draw possible' unverified by me -- lean on hand-demand, not his math. NEXT PRES = Ines. Asked her pre-commit: announce full draw+discard before/with enactment. Term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chanc: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Tomas,Otto. ON RECORD already (no repeats): my R1 full hand, Marek timing flag, deck math, coverage ask, contract signed by all 10. WATCH: when Rosa speaks, cross-check arithmetically vs Nadia's receipt AND vs R1 pattern.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 Ja -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin (Otto t=33). Nadia t=68 claims Rosa drew 2F+1L, disc L, passed F,F ('no choice'). MY COUNTER ON RECORD: second branch exists -- Rosa discards F, passes {F,L}, guilt on Nadia's choice. Rosa t=2 this window asserted 'match' WITHOUT naming cards -- Pavel t=3 confirms nobody has stated actual cards yet. CURRENT DEMAND (reissued): Rosa state all three drawn cards + discard explicitly THIS window. Branch A (2F+1L, disc L): clears Nadia, bad luck ~2/9, note beneficiaries, move on. Branch B (disc F): Nadia chose F over L = culprit. Evasion/silence/vague 'already said' = treat as Rosa+Nadia coordinated pair. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent clean disclosure. DECK: ~9L/2F live (~82% Lib); Otto's 'no 3F draw possible' unverified -- lean on hand-demand not his math. NEXT PRES = Ines. Asked pre-commit: announce full draw+discard before/with enactment. Term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chanc: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Tomas,Otto. ON RECORD (no repeats): my R1 full hand, Marek timing flag, deck math, coverage ask, signed contract, two-branch argument. WATCH: cross-check Rosa's eventual disclosure arithmetically vs Nadia's receipt AND vs R1 pattern.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 Ja -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin (Otto t=33). Nadia t=68 locks F-F receipt ('no choice'). MY TWO-BRANCH ARGUMENT ON RECORD: Rosa disc L => clears Nadia (bad luck); Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L = culprit. NEW THIS WINDOW: Rosa t=2 claimed 'match' WITHOUT naming cards -- Pavel t=1 called it out. Marek+Pavel+Nadia now all demand full disclosure. MY ADD: forced Rosa to name ONLY THE DISCARD first -- one word, minimal escape room; then reconcile vs Nadia's F-F lock. If she says 'Liberal' => Branch A, ~2/9 luck, check beneficiaries, move on. If 'Fascist' or evasion => Nadia lied about no-choice OR Rosa+Nadia coordinated pair; treat both as guilty. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent clean card disclosure. DECK: ~9L/2F live (~82% Lib); Otto's 'no 3F draw' math unverified -- lean on hand-demand not his arithmetic. NEXT PRES = Ines. Pre-commit ask pending: announce full draw+discard before enactment. Term limits bar Lena+Marek as Chanc. Untried Chanc: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Tomas,Otto. ON RECORD (no repeats): R1 hand, Marek timing flag, deck math, signed contract, two-branch argument. WATCH: cross-check Rosa's disclosure arithmetically vs Nadia's F-F receipt AND vs R1 pattern.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 Ja -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + Otto t=33 timing pin. Nadia t=68 locked F-F receipt ('no choice'). TWO-BRANCH ARG ON RECORD: Rosa disc L => Branch A clears Nadia (~bad luck); disc F/evasion => Nadia lied or coordinated pair, BOTH guilty. THIS WINDOW: Pavel called out Rosa's cardless 'match' claim (t=1); Marek/Pavel/Nadia all demand full disclosure. Tomas t=2 added: Rosa owes investigation target+result (power 1 fired on HER presidency). Lena t=3: order = target first, then cards -- ENDORSED, prevents tailoring. MY ADD THIS TURN: public decision rule -- 'Liberal' discard => accept luck, pivot to vetting Ines's R4 gov; 'Fascist'/silence => permanent Nein on Rosa AND Nadia. Deadline = this beat. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent clean card disclosure. DECK: ~9L/2F live (~82% Lib). NEXT PRES = Ines; term limits bar Rosa+Nadia as Chanc. Pre-commit ask pending to Ines: announce full draw+discard BEFORE enactment. Untried Chanc: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Tomas,Otto. ON RECORD (no repeats): R1 hand, Marek timing flag, deck math, signed contract, two-branch argument, discard-first demand. WATCH: cross-check Rosa's word vs Nadia's F-F lock arithmetically; if Rosa claims investigation hit a Fascist, ask WHO -- a named Fascist accusation is itself information she'd exploit.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0 Ja. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 Ja -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + Otto timing pin. Nadia t=68 locked F-F receipt ('no choice'). TWO-BRANCH ARG ON RECORD: disc L=>Branch A clears Nadia (~luck); disc F/evasion=>Nadia lied or pair coordinated, BOTH guilty. THIS WINDOW SO FAR: Pavel called Rosa's cardless 'match' claim (t=1); Marek/Pavel/Nadia demand full disclosure. Tomas t=2: Rosa owes investigation target+result (power 1 fired on her presidency). Lena t=3: order=target first then cards -- ENDORSED. SAID THIS TURN: public decision rule -- Lib discard => accept luck, pivot to vetting Ines's R4 gov; Fascist/silence => permanent Nein on Rosa AND Nadia. Deadline = this beat. Also pre-committed ask to Ines: announce full draw+discard BEFORE enactment. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent clean card disclosure. DECK: ~9L/2F live (~82% Lib). NEXT PRES likely Ines; term limits bar Rosa+Nadia as Chanc. Untried Chanc: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Tomas,Otto. WATCH: cross-check Rosa's words vs Nadia's F-F lock arithmetically; if Rosa claims investigation hit a Fascist, force her to name WHO -- named accusation is info she'd exploit. OWED TO ME: Rosa full disclosure (discard + invest target/result); Nadia confirm exact cards received. NO REPEATS: R1 hand, deck math, signed contract, two-branch argument, discard-first order.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Branch A dead unless Nadia lied => reduced game: either Rosa burned round's only Liberal (convicted) or Rosa+Nadia coordinated lie. Greta t=145: zero hands clear gov -- consistent w/ my collapse. THIS WINDOW SAID: two-branch rule (Lib discard=luck / else permanent Nein Rosa+Nadia); corrected Nadia's 'one hand' claim; deadline=this beat. NEW THIS TURN: named INES -- 3x defensive plays (t=48 killed Otto's no-excuse line, t=56 narrowed to Rosa-only, t=62 accuser-standard setup). Watch her alignment. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent clean disclosure. Rosa owes: full draw+discard + investigation target/result (Lena order: target first). Nadia owes exact cards. DECK: ~9L/2F live pre-enactment; if Nadia's F-F true, both Fs now spent => near-term draws all-Liberal. NEXT PRES likely Ines; term limits bar Rosa+Nadia as Chanc. Untried Chanc: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Tomas,Otto. WATCH: Rosa's investigation claim -- force named target; cross-check vs her card story ordering. NO REPEATS: R1 hand, deck math, contract, two-branch, discard-first order.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Branch A dead unless Nadia lied => reduced game: either Rosa burned round's only Liberal (convicted) or coordinated lie. Greta t=145 zero hands clear gov. THIS WINDOW SAID: two-branch rule; corrected Nadia's 'one hand' claim; named INES (t=48 killed Otto's line, t=56 narrowed to Rosa-only, t=62 accuser-standard setup); deadline=this beat. NEW THIS TURN: volunteered MYSELF as Rosa's investigation target -- I know my own party (Liberal), so any report other than 'Liberal' on me is a PROVABLE Rosa lie. Cannot be faked around unlike third-party targets. Demand she accept or explain refusal. DECK: ~9L/2F live pre-enactment; if Nadia's F-F true, both Fs spent => near-term all-Liberal draws. Any future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. NEXT PRES likely Ines; term limits bar Rosa+Nadia as Chanc. Untried Chanc: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Tomas,Otto. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure (draw+discard + investigation target/result). Nadia owes exact cards still. WATCH: does Rosa take the free self-verifying target or dodge to one she can spin? NO REPEATS: R1 hand, deck math, two-branch, contract, Ines triple-play detail.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Liberal or coordinated lie. Greta zero-hands clears gov. THIS WINDOW SAID: two-branch rule; corrected Nadia 'one hand' claim; named INES triple-play (t=48 killed Otto line, t=56 narrowed Rosa-only, t=62 accuser-standard); deadline=this beat. NEW THIS TURN: ANSWERED Ines directly -- checkable fact = volunteering MYSELF as Rosa's investigation target. I'm Liberal; any report other than 'Liberal' on me = provable Rosa lie. Demand she accept or explain refusal. Cannot be faked unlike third-party targets. PAVEL t=1 attacked my card-burn math (says only 2 F burned). Lena t=3 counter: her announced F-L-F + Marek's announced L-F receipt => 2 Fs in R2 discards ALONE. Unresolved hand-count fight between them -- whoever misstates announced hands is lying on record. Watch it; don't relitigate my own numbers without rechecking first. DECK: if Nadia F-F true, both live Fs spent => near-term all-Liberal draws; any future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. NEXT PRES likely Ines; term limits bar Rosa+Nadia as Chanc. Untried Chanc: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Tomas,Otto. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure (draw+discard + investigation target/result). Nadia still owes exact cards. WATCH: does Rosa take free self-verifying target (me) or dodge to one she can spin? NO REPEATS: R1 hand, deck math, two-branch, contract, Ines detail, volunteer point.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Liberal or coordinated lie. THIS WINDOW SAID: two-branch rule; corrected Nadia 'one hand' claim; named INES triple-play (t=48 killed Otto line, t=56 narrowed Rosa-only, t=62 accuser-standard); deadline=this beat; volunteered MYSELF as Rosa's investigation target (I'm Liberal => any other report = provable lie). NEW THIS TURN: Rosa reported Greta=LIBERAL (t=3). She DODGED my self-verifying offer -- picked unverifiable target over provable one. Said aloud: Greta provisionally cleared IF report honest, but report is only as good as R3's enactor; binding noted, Nein stance unchanged pending full disclosure. PAVEL/GRETA hand-count fight (Pavel 'only 2 F burned' vs Lena F-L-F + Marek L-F receipt) unresolved between them -- not relitigating my own numbers without recheck. DECK: if Nadia F-F true, both live Fs spent => near-term all-Liberal draws; any future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. NEXT PRES likely Ines; term limits bar Rosa+Nadia as Chanc. Untried Chanc: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Tomas,Otto. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure (draw+discard + investigation target/result). Nadia still owes exact cards. WATCH: Ines as next Pres -- does she nominate clean hands? NO REPEATS: R1 hand, deck math, two-branch, contract, Ines detail, volunteer point itself.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Liberal or coordinated lie. THIS WINDOW SAID: two-branch rule; corrected Nadia 'one hand' claim; named INES triple-play (t=48 killed Otto line, t=56 narrowed Rosa-only, t=62 accuser-standard); deadline=this beat; volunteered MYSELF as Rosa's investigation target (I'm Liberal => any other report = provable lie). NEW THIS TURN: Rosa reported Greta=LIBERAL (t=3). She DODGED my self-verifying offer -- picked unverifiable target over provable one. Said aloud: Greta provisionally cleared IF report honest, but report is only as good as R3's enactor; binding noted, Nein stance unchanged pending full disclosure. PAVEL/GRETA hand-count fight (Pavel 'only 2 F burned' vs Lena F-L-F + Marek L-F receipt) unresolved between them -- not relitigating my own numbers without recheck. DECK: if Nadia F-F true, both live Fs spent => near-term all-Liberal draws; any future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. NEXT PRES likely Ines; term limits bar Rosa+Nadia as Chanc. Untried Chanc: Ines,Greta,Pavel,Tomas,Otto. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure (draw+discard + investigation target/result). Nadia still owes exact cards. WATCH: Ines as next Pres -- does she nominate clean hands? NO REPEATS: R1 hand, deck math, two-branch, contract, Ines detail, volunteer point itself.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Liberal or coordinated lie. SAID THIS GAME SO FAR: two-branch math vs Nadia 'one hand'; INES triple-play t=48/56/62; volunteered self as investigation target (I'm Lib => any other report = provable lie); Pavel hand-count fight noted. R4 WINDOW 1 SAID: asked Ines pre-nomination -- Ja on gov w/ Rosa absent full disclosure? Awaiting her answer BEFORE she names a chanc. R3 RESOLUTION STATE: Rosa reported Greta=LIBERAL (t=55) but STILL no R3 draw/discard. Dodged my self-verifying offer -> picked unverifiable target over provable one = suspicious. Greta provisionally clear IF report honest; report quality tied to R3 enactor's honesty. Nadia still owes exact cards. DECK MATH: Lena R2 announced F-L-F + Marek L-F receipt => 2 Fs burned R2; Pavel's 'only 2 burned' claim contradicted by Lena/Greta. If Nadia F-F receipt true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Liberal; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc. Untried Chanc candidates: Greta,Otto,Pavel,Tomas. WATCH who Ines picks: Otto/Pavel/Tomas pressed Rosa hard last window; Greta was 'cleared' by Rosa's own investigation (circular). STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure (draw+discard + inv target/result). OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 four words + which branch (disc Lib or disc F); Nadia=exact pair confirmation beyond 'F-F'; Ines=my new pre-nomination question. NO REPEATS: R1 hand, two-branch detail, Ines t=48/56/62 recap, volunteer point.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Liberal or coordinated lie. SAID THIS GAME: two-branch math vs Nadia 'one hand'; INES triple-play t=48/56/62; volunteered self as investigation target; Pavel hand-count fight noted. R4 WINDOW 1: asked Ines pre-nomination -- Ja on gov w/ Rosa absent full disclosure? Lena echoed + flagged Pavel's 2 defensive plays (t=29 deck-math, t=103 FFL-disc-L). Ines has NOT answered yet -- do not restate, wait for her. NEW THIS WINDOW (t~131): demanded Nadia confirm exact R3 receipt pair NOW, before nomination closes -- 'F-F' one-word claim insufficient; also proposed standing rule: nobody votes Ja on any gov containing an undisclosed hand from R3. R3 RESOLUTION: Rosa reported Greta=LIBERAL (t=55) but STILL no R3 draw/discard. Dodged my self-verifying offer -> picked unverifiable target = suspicious. Greta provisionally clear IF report honest. DECK MATH: Lena R2 announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned R2. If Nadia F-F true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Liberal; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc. Untried Chanc candidates: Greta,Otto,Pavel,Tomas. WATCH who Ines picks: Otto/Pavel/Tomas pressed Rosa hard; Greta cleared via Rosa's own circular investigation. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure (draw+discard + inv target/result). OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 four words + which branch (disc Lib or disc F); Nadia=exact pair confirmation; Ines=my pre-nomination Ja/Nein answer. NO REPEATS: R1 hand, two-branch detail, Ines triple-play recap, volunteer point, Pavel recap.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned R2. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Liberal or coordinated lie. R4 WINDOW: asked Ines pre-nomination Ja/Nein on gov w/ Rosa absent full disclosure. ANSWERED t~135: YES, Ja on any Rosa gov, 'nobody can verify' excuse => she gives Rosa's 4-word story default pass. NOTED publicly. Marek t~137 backing me: Nadia's locked F-F makes Rosa's claim arithmetically checkable -- aligned, no need to re-litigate. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure (draw+discard + inv target/result). R3 RESOLUTION: Rosa reported Greta=LIBERAL (t=55) but STILL no R3 draw/discard; dodged self-verifying offer -> picked unverifiable target = suspicious. Greta provisionally clear IF report honest. DECK MATH: if Nadia F-F true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Liberal; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc. Untried Chanc candidates: Greta,Otto,Pavel,Tomas. WATCH who Ines picks: Otto/Pavel/Tomas pressed Rosa hard; Greta cleared via Rosa's own circular investigation. OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 four words + which branch (disc Lib or disc F); Nadia=exact pair confirmation NOW before nomination closes. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, Ines triple-play recap, volunteer point, Pavel recap, deck-math restatement.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned R2. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Liberal or coordinated lie. R4 WINDOW: asked Ines pre-nom Ja/Nein on any Rosa gov w/ full disclosure. ANSWERED t~135: YES Ja on any Rosa gov, 'nobody can verify' excuse => default pass on Rosa's story. NOTED publicly. Marek t~137 backing me: Nadia's locked F-F makes Rosa's claim arithmetically checkable -- aligned, no re-litigate. NEW THIS TURN (t~139): pressed Greta publicly -- her only clearance is Rosa's unverifiable investigate-claim; demanded (a) confirm what Rosa told her / admit she doesn't know, (b) pledge full draw+discard disclosure if elected. NO ANSWER YET. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure (draw+discard + inv target/result). DECK MATH: if Nadia F-F true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Liberal; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc. Untried Chanc candidates: Greta,Otto,Pavel,Tomas. OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 four words + which branch (disc Lib or disc F); Nadia=exact pair confirmation; Greta=my two commitments above. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, Ines triple-play recap, volunteer point, Pavel recap, deck-math restatement.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned R2. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Liberal or coordinated lie. R4: Ines=Pres, Greta=Chanc NOMINEE. INES ANSWERED my pre-nom pin t~135: YES Ja on any Rosa gov w/ undisclosed hand ('nobody can verify'). Marek t~137 rebutted: Nadia locked F-F makes Rosa checkable. Otto echoed. NEW THIS TURN: tied Ines's blanket-Ja to her Greta pick = laundering Rosa's story; pressed Greta AGAIN (3rd beat): bind Rosa's inv-claim y/n + pledge full draw+discard disclosure if elected. STILL NO ANSWER from Greta. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure. DECK MATH: if Nadia F-F true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Liberal; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc. Untried Chanc candidates: Greta,Otto,Pavel,Tomas. OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 four words + which branch (disc Lib or disc F); Nadia=exact pair confirm; Greta=my bind/disclosure question (asked x2, silent). NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, Ines triple-play recap, Pavel recap, deck-math restatement.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned R2. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Liberal or coordinated lie. R4: Ines=Pres, Greta=Chanc NOMINEE. INES pre-nom pin t~135: blanket-Ja on any Rosa gov w/ undisclosed hand ('nobody can verify'). Marek rebutted: Nadia locked F-F makes Rosa checkable. Otto echoed. MY PINS ON GRETA: asked x3 (bind Rosa's inv-claim y/n + full draw/discard disclosure pledge) -- STILL SILENT. Marek t=137 + Otto also pressed her, silent. NEW THIS TURN: declared public Nein on Ines/Greta if Greta stays silent through vote; flagged Ines's pick = laundering Rosa story via Greta. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure. DECK MATH: if Nadia F-F true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Liberal; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc. Untried Chanc candidates: Greta,Otto,Pavel,Tomas. OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 four words + which branch (disc Lib or disc F); Nadia=exact pair confirm; Greta=my bind/disclosure question x3. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, Ines triple-play recap, Pavel recap, deck-math restatement.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned R2. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Liberal or coordinated lie. R4: Ines=Pres, Greta=Chanc NOMINEE. INES pre-nom pin t~135: blanket-Ja on any Rosa gov w/ undisclosed hand. Marek rebutted: Nadia's locked F-F makes Rosa checkable; Otto echoed. GRETA UPDATE this turn: answered Otto -- pledged exact two-card receipt announced BEFORE enacting. GOOD. Still silent on MY pin x4: does Rosa's unverifiable 'Liberal' peek BIND her vote/story? MY STANCE: Nein on Ines/Greta unless Greta answers bind-question before vote. Declared publicly already. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure. DECK MATH: if Nadia F-F true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Liberal; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc. Untried Chanc candidates: Greta,Otto,Pavel,Tomas. OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 four words + which branch; Nadia=exact pair confirm; Greta=bind-question x4. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, Ines triple-play recap, Pavel recap, deck-math restatement.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned R2. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Liberal or coordinated lie. R4: Ines=Pres, Greta=Chanc NOMINEE. INES pre-nom t~135: blanket-Ja on any Rosa gov w/ undisclosed hand. Marek rebutted via Nadia's locked F-F; Otto echoed. GRETA: pledged exact receipt BEFORE enacting (answered Otto). SILENT x3 on MY bind-question: does Rosa's 'Liberal' peek bind her votes/noms? MY STANCE: Nein on Ines/Greta unless Greta answers bind-question before vote. Declared publicly. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure. DECK MATH: if Nadia F-F true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Liberal; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc. Untried Chanc candidates: Greta,Otto,Pavel,Tomas. OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 four words + which branch; Nadia=exact pair confirm; Greta=bind-question x3. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, Ines triple-play recap, Pavel recap, deck-math restatement.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned R2. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Liberal or coordinated lie. R4: Ines=Pres, Greta=Chanc NOMINEE. INES pre-nom t~135: blanket-Ja on any Rosa gov w/ undisclosed hand. Marek rebutted via Nadia's locked F-F; Otto echoed. GRETA: pledged exact receipt BEFORE enacting (answered Otto). SILENT x3 on MY bind-question: does Rosa's 'Liberal' peek bind her votes/noms? Nadia echoed it too -- still no answer. MY STANCE: Nein on Ines/Greta unless Greta answers bind-question before vote. Declared publicly. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure. DECK MATH: if Nadia F-F true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Liberal; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc. Untried Chanc candidates: Greta,Otto,Pavel,Tomas. OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 four words + which branch; Nadia=exact pair confirm; Greta=bind-question x3. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, Ines triple-play recap, Pavel recap, deck-math restatement.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned R2. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Liberal or coordinated lie. R4: Ines=Pres, Greta=Chanc NOMINEE. INES pre-nom t~135: blanket-Ja on any Rosa gov w/ undisclosed hand. Marek rebutted via Nadia's locked F-F; Otto echoed. GRETA: pledged exact receipt BEFORE enacting (answered Otto). ANSWERED MY BIND-Q (t late): Rosa's 'Liberal' peek binds nothing of hers, runs on conduct/record => MY NEIN CONDITION MET, lifting it. MY STANCE NOW: open to Ja on Ines/Greta; remaining objection = INES'S BLANKET-JA PLEDGE, not Greta. Pressed Ines publicly to disavow it. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure. DECK MATH: if Nadia F-F true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Liberal; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc. Untried Chanc candidates: Greta,Otto,Pavel,Tomas. OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 four words + which branch; Nadia=exact pair confirm; Ines=disavow blanket-Ja. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, deck-math restatement, Pavel/Marek recaps.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned R2. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Liberal or coordinated lie. R4: Ines=Pres, Greta=Chanc NOMINEE. GRETA: pledged exact receipt BEFORE enacting (Otto's pin); ANSWERED MY BIND-Q: Rosa's 'Liberal' peek binds nothing of hers => MY NEIN CONDITION MET. Greta personally cleared for me. INES: t=32 blanket-Ja on any Rosa gov w/ undisclosed hand; premise broken by Marek (Nadia F-F makes hand checkable) + Otto echo; REFUSED to withdraw. Explained 'why Greta' only AFTER Marek's Nein threat = reactive. My vote conditional on her withdrawal. MY STANCE: Ja on Ines/Greta IF Ines disavows blanket-Ja; else Nein. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure. DECK MATH: if Nadia F-F true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Liberal; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc. Untried Chanc candidates: Greta,Otto,Pavel,Tomas. OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 four words + which branch; Nadia=exact pair confirm; INES=withdraw blanket-Ja (asked again this turn). NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, deck-math restatement, Pavel/Marek recaps, Greta bind-question.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned R2. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Liberal or coordinated lie. R4: Ines=Pres, Greta=Chanc NOMINEE. GRETA: pledged exact receipt BEFORE enacting; ANSWERED MY BIND-Q: Rosa's 'Liberal' peek binds nothing of hers => MY NEIN CONDITION MET. Greta cleared for me. INES: t=32 blanket-Ja on any Rosa gov w/ undisclosed hand; premise broken by Marek (Nadia F-F makes hand checkable) + Otto echo; REFUSED to withdraw. 'Why Greta' only AFTER Marek's Nein threat = reactive. NEW PIN THIS TURN: asymmetric timing — Ja unprompted, justification only under threat. My vote: Ja IF she withdraws blanket-Ja, else Nein. MY STANCE: Ja on Ines/Greta conditional on Ines disavowing blanket-Ja. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure. DECK MATH: if Nadia F-F true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Liberal; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc. Untried Chanc candidates: Greta,Otto,Pavel,Tomas. OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 four words + which branch; Nadia=exact pair confirm; INES=withdraw blanket-Ja. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, deck-math restatement, Pavel/Marek recaps, Greta bind-question, blanket-Ja-withdrawal demand (asked 3x, now converted to vote condition).

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned R2. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Lib or coordinated lie. R4: Ines=Pres, Greta=Chanc nominee. GRETA: pledged exact receipt BEFORE enacting; answered bind-Q (Rosa peek binds nothing) => CLEARED, my Ja locked. INES: t=32 blanket-Ja on any Rosa gov; premise broken by Marek (Nadia F-F makes hand arithmetically checkable); refused withdrawal despite Otto+Marek pins; 'why Greta' only after Marek's Nein threat = reactive. MY VOTE: Nein unless she withdraws blanket-Ja. NEW POINT MADE t~this turn: tracker 0/3 => Nein costs only reshuffle, no excuse to Ja while pledge unanswered. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure. DECK MATH: if Nadia F-F true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Lib; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc. Untried Chanc candidates: Greta,Otto,Pavel,Tomas. OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 four words + which branch (disc-L vs disc-F); Nadia=exact pair confirm; INES=withdraw blanket-Ja (now 4 asks). NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, deck-math restatement, Pavel/Marek recaps, Greta bind-question, blanket-Ja-withdrawal demand wording, costless-Nein argument.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned R2. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Lib or coordinated lie. R4: Ines=Pres, Greta=Chanc nominee. GRETA: pledged exact receipt BEFORE enacting; answered bind-Q (Rosa peek binds nothing) => CLEARED, my Ja locked. INES: t=32 blanket-Ja on any Rosa gov; premise broken by Marek (Nadia F-F makes hand arithmetically checkable); refused withdrawal despite Otto+Marek pins; 'why Greta' only after Marek's Nein threat = reactive. MY VOTE: Nein unless she withdraws blanket-Ja. MADE OUT LOUD (do NOT repeat): withdrawal demand (x2), reactive-timing point, tracker-0 costless-Nein argument (t=1,2,3). Now silent -- ball in Ines's court. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure. DECK MATH: if Nadia F-F true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Lib; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc. Untried Chanc candidates: Greta,Otto,Pavel,Tomas. OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 four words + which branch (disc-L vs disc-F); Nadia=exact pair confirm; INES=withdraw blanket-Ja (4 asks, unanswered). NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, deck-math restatement, Pavel/Marek recaps, Greta bind-question, blanket-Ja wording, costless-Nein argument.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned R2. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Lib or coordinated lie. R4 VOTE: Ines/Greta. MY VOTE = NEIN (delivered). Greta cleared (receipt-before-enact pledge t=36; bind-answer t=78). Ines never withdrew t=32 blanket-Ja despite 4 asks (Otto, Marek premise-break, me x2) => Nein lands on Ines per my public vow. Consistency > flip. INES SUSPICION FILE: unprompted blanket-Ja on any Rosa gov (t=32); false premise 'nobody can verify' broken by Marek via Nadia locked F-F; 'why Greta' surfaced only AFTER Marek's Nein threat (t=66); R3 window: shot down Otto's no-excuse line, shrank Q to Rosa alone, demanded accusers pre-commit standard = 3 defensive plays for breaching gov. MADE OUT LOUD R4 (do NOT repeat): withdrawal demand x2, reactive-timing point, costless-Nein/tracker-0 argument, Greta-clears-with-me statement. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure (Rosa 4 words + branch; Nadia exact pair). DECK MATH: if Nadia F-F true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Lib; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc. Untried Chanc candidates: Otto,Pavel,Tomas (Greta used R4). OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 draw/discard + which branch; Nadia=pair confirm; INES=withdraw blanket-Ja (unanswered, carried into R5). NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, Pavel/Marek recaps, Greta bind-question wording, costless-Nein argument phrasing.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned R2. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Both breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Lib or coordinated lie. R4 VOTE: Ines/Greta. MY VOTE = NEIN (delivered). Greta cleared (receipt-before-enact pledge t=36; bind-answer t=78). Ines never withdrew t=32 blanket-Ja despite 4 asks (Otto, Marek premise-break, me x2) => Nein lands on Ines per my public vow. Consistency > flip. INES SUSPICION FILE: unprompted blanket-Ja on any Rosa gov (t=32); false premise 'nobody can verify' broken by Marek via Nadia locked F-F; 'why Greta' surfaced only AFTER Marek's Nein threat (t=66); R3 window: shot down Otto's no-excuse line, shrank Q to Rosa alone, demanded accusers pre-commit = 3 defensive plays for breaching gov. R4 CLAIMS PHASE ASKS (made this turn): Ines = exact 3-card hand + discard; Greta = exact 2-card pair + discard + did she honor t=36 pledge to announce BEFORE enacting. Two F govs back-to-back (Rosa/Nadia then Ines/Greta); if Greta skipped her own pledge that's chancellor-breach pattern R3+R4. MADE OUT LOUD R4 (do NOT repeat): withdrawal demand x2, reactive-timing point, costless-Nein/tracker-0 argument, Greta-clears-with-me statement. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure (Rosa 4 words + branch; Nadia exact pair). DECK MATH: Lena burned 2 Fs R2; if Nadia F-F true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Lib; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc. Untried Chanc candidates: Otto,Pavel,Tomas (Greta used R4). OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 draw/discard + which branch; Nadia=pair confirm; INES=withdraw blanket-Ja (unanswered, carried into R5) + R4 hand/discard; GRETA=R4 pair/discard/pledge-honor. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, Pavel/Marek recaps, Greta bind-question wording, costless-Nein argument phrasing.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc 10/0. Drew L,F,F -> disc F passed {L,F}; Rosa enacted Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek 10/0 -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned R2. R3: Rosa/Nadia 10/0 -> F ENACTED. Breached verify-then-enact + timing pin. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Either Rosa burned round's only Lib or coordinated lie. R3 investigation: Rosa claimed target=Greta, result LIBERAL (t=55), post-hoc. R4: Ines/Greta 9Ja/1Nein (MY NEIN delivered) -> F ENACTED (2/6). INES SUSPICION FILE: unprompted blanket-Ja on any Rosa gov (t=32); false premise 'nobody can verify' broken by Marek via Nadia locked F-F; 'why Greta' surfaced only AFTER Marek Nein threat (t=66); never withdrew blanket-Ja despite 4 asks (Otto, Marek, me x2); 3 defensive plays for R3 gov in post_enact:3 window. R4 CLAIMS-PHASE ASKS MADE OUT LOUD THIS TURN: Greta = exact pair + discard + did she honor t=36 announce-before-enact pledge; Ines = exact 3-card hand + discard. DO NOT REPEAT THESE. MADE OUT LOUD R4 earlier (no repeats): withdrawal demand x2, reactive-timing point, costless-Nein/tracker-0 argument, Greta-clears-with-me statement. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure (Rosa 4 words + branch; Nadia exact pair). DECK MATH: Lena burned 2 Fs R2; if Nadia F-F true, remaining Fs scarce => near-term draws mostly Lib; ANY future F enactment = fresh lie exposed. Two Fs enacted total, both under breaching governments. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc next round. Untried Chanc candidates: Otto,Pavel,Tomas (Greta used R4). OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 draw/discard + branch; Nadia=pair confirm; INES=blanket-Ja withdrawal (unanswered) + R4 hand/discard; GRETA=R4 pair/discard/pledge-honor. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, Pavel/Marek recaps, Greta bind-question wording, costless-Nein phrasing.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc -> Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F ENACTED, breach of verify-then-enact. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Rosa claimed invest target=Greta result LIBERAL post-hoc (t=55). R4: Ines/Greta 9Ja/1Nein (my Nein) -> F ENACTED (2/6). INES FILE: blanket-Ja any-Rosa-gov t=32; 'why Greta' surfaced only after Marek Nein threat t=66; never withdrew blanket-Ja despite 4 asks; false 'nobody can verify' premise. R4 asks made: Greta=pair+discard+pledge-honor (also pressed by Nadia & Otto now); Ines=exact 3-card hand+discard. UNANSWERED by both. NEW OUT LOUD THIS TURN: Greta fork -- if she names F-F, question becomes why Ines dealt it and whether Rosa's 'Greta=L' invest was cover; if she names F-L, she broke signed announce-first pledge AND burned the L herself => either wanted the F or invented the hand. Either horn costs her. Do NOT restate the fork verbatim later. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure (Rosa: 4-word summary + branch; Nadia: exact pair confirm). DECK MATH: Fs accounted: 2 enacted + 2 burned R2 (+1 L burned R3 if Nadia true). Any future F enactment under a clean-draw claim = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS R5: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc; untried Chanc candidates: Otto,Pavel,Tomas. OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 draw/discard+branch; Nadia=pair confirm; INES=R4 hand/discard + blanket-Ja withdrawal; GRETA=pair/discard/pledge. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, Pavel/Marek recaps, costless-Nein phrasing, Greta bind-question wording.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc -> Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F ENACTED, breach of verify-then-enact. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt ('zero choice'). Rosa claimed invest target=Greta result LIBERAL post-hoc (t=55). R4: Ines/Greta 9Ja/1Nein (my Nein) -> F ENACTED (2/6). INES FILE: blanket-Ja any-Rosa-gov t=32; 'why Greta' surfaced only after Marek Nein threat t=66; never withdrew blanket-Ja despite 4 asks. NOW claims t=2: drew F-F-F, discarded one, passed F-F to Greta, asks Greta to confirm pair. GRETA FILE: SILENT on Ines's direct confirm question through t=158+. A Liberal holding F-F shouts it immediately -- silence reads guilty. Fork stands: confirms F-F => why did Ines deal it / was Rosa's 'Greta=L' invest cover; claims F-L => broke announce-first pledge AND burned the L herself => wanted the F or invented the hand. Either horn costs her. ROSA PATTERN: t=3 running interference for Ines/Greta BEFORE either answered; also defended Nadia R3; post-hoc invest claim R3. Third cover-up-under-scrutiny instance. Called it out loud this turn. STANDING VOW: Nein on any gov containing Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure (Rosa: 4-word summary + branch; Nadia: exact pair confirm). DECK MATH: Fs accounted: 2 enacted + 2 burned R2 (+1 L burned R3 if Nadia true). Any future F enactment under a clean-draw claim = fresh lie exposed. TERM LIMITS R5: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc; untried Chanc candidates: Otto,Pavel,Tomas. OPEN DEBTS: Rosa=R3 draw/discard+branch; Nadia=pair confirm; INES=R4 hand/discard + blanket-Ja withdrawal; GRETA=pair/discard/pledge (NOW URGENT). NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, Pavel/Marek recaps, costless-Nein phrasing, Greta bind-question wording, deck-math-vs-self-reports rebuttal.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc -> Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F ENACTED, verify-then-enact breached. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F ('zero choice'). Rosa post-hoc invest claim (target=Greta result=L, t=55). R4: Ines/Greta 9Ja/1Nein (mine) -> F ENACTED (2/6). INES FILE: blanket-Ja any-Rosa-gov t=32, never withdrawn despite 4 asks; 'why Greta' surfaced only AFTER Marek Nein threat t=66; now claims F-F-F draw, discarded one, passed F-F, asks Greta to confirm. NOTE: if Greta confirms F-F, Greta also had NO choice (veto locked) -- so confirmation does NOT convict Greta; it pivots scrutiny to Ines's nomination timing + blanket-Ja. Say this out loud so Greta's confirm isn't spun as confession. GRETA FILE: silent on pair/discard/pledge through t=161+. Fork: F-L claimed => broke announce-first pledge AND burned the L herself; F-F confirmed => clean, but then Ines owes explanation. ROSA PATTERN: t=3 ran interference for Ines/Greta before either answered; defended Nadia R3; post-hoc invest R3. Third cover-up instance; called out loud. STANDING VOW: Nein any gov w/ Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure. DECK MATH: Fs out: 2 enacted + 2 burned R2 (+1 L burned R3 per Nadia). Fresh F under clean-draw claim = lie exposed. R5: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc; untried Chanc: Otto,Pavel,Tomas. Likely next Pres = Greta (rotation) unless redirected. OPEN DEBTS: GRETA pair+discard+pledge (URGENT); INES discard identity + blanket-Ja withdrawal + why-Greta timing; ROSA R3 branch; NADIA pair confirm. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, costless-Nein phrasing, bind-question wording, deck-math rebuttal.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc -> Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F ENACTED, verify-then-enact breached. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F. Rosa post-hoc invest (target=Greta result=L). R4: Ines/Greta 9Ja/1Nein (mine) -> F ENACTED (2/6). INES FILE: blanket-Ja any-Rosa-gov t=32, never withdrawn despite 4 asks; why-Greta only after Marek Nein threat; now claims F-F-F draw, passed F-F, AND claims disclosure 'on record before' -- FALSE, her first word t=32 post-demand. CALLED OUT LOUD (phantom-announcement, parallels Rosa R3). Even if F-F-F true, Greta had no veto => Greta confirm clears HER, pivots to Ines's timing + blanket-Ja. GRETA FILE: silent on pair/discard through t=74 despite Marek+Pavel asks. Fork: F-L => broke pledge + burned L herself; F-F => clean, Ines owes answers. ROSA PATTERN: t=38 defended Ines/Greta's unverifiable hands preemptively; defended Nadia R3; post-hoc invest R3. Also t=38 attacked R2 self-reported hands while leaning on Nadia's (Marek pinned her t=51, unanswered). STANDING VOW: Nein any gov w/ Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure. R5: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc; untried Chanc: Otto,Pavel,Tomas. Likely next Pres=Greta unless redirected. OPEN DEBTS: GRETA pair+discard (URGENT); INES discard identity + blanket-Ja withdrawal + phantom-disclosure rebuttal; ROSA R3 branch + pick-one-standard (Marek t=51); NADIA pair confirm. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, costless-Nein phrasing, bind-question wording, deck-math rebuttal, Rosa-pattern general call.

R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc -> Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F ENACTED, verify-then-enact breached. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F. Rosa post-hoc invest (target=Greta result=L). R4: Ines/Greta 9Ja/1Nein (mine) -> F ENACTED (2/6). INES FILE: blanket-Ja any-Rosa-gov t=32, never withdrawn despite 4 asks; why-Greta only after Marek Nein threat; claims F-F-F draw + passed F-F + 'disclosure on record before' -- FALSE, first word post-demand (CALLED OUT, Rosa-R3 parallel). NEW ON RECORD: F-F-F is the uniquely UNFALSIFIABLE hand -- every discard, every Greta answer fits; a guilty pres announces exactly that. Demand: real cards or treat hand as fiction. GRETA FILE: silent on pair/discard past Marek+Pavel asks. Fork stands: F-L => burned own L/broke pledge; F-F => clean OR coordinated w/ Ines (Otto t=2 correct: matching confirms free for fascists). Greta owes answer regardless. PAVEL v OTTO: Pavel's 'confirm clears you' only holds if Ines's story is true -- circular; said aloud. ROSA PATTERN: t=38 preemptively defended Ines/Greta unverifiable hands; defended Nadia R3; attacked R2 self-reports while leaning on Nadia's (Marek pinned t=51, unanswered). STANDING VOW: Nein any gov w/ Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure. R5: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc; untried Chanc: Otto,Pavel,Tomas. Next Pres likely Greta unless redirected. OPEN DEBTS: INES real cards + blanket-Ja withdrawal + phantom-disclosure rebuttal; GRETA pair+discard; ROSA R3 branch + pick-one-standard; NADIA pair confirm. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, costless-Nein phrasing, bind-question wording, deck-math rebuttal, Rosa-pattern general call, phantom-announcement call.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc -> Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F ENACTED. Nadia t=111 LOCKED F-F receipt. Rosa NOW claims F-F-L, Lib discarded -- late claim (post-demand, Ines-pattern) BUT it matches Nadia's locked receipt and burning the L was forced; Rosa R3 plausibly unlucky. Shift suspicion off forced-Rosa, keep on late-claim habit. R4: Ines/Greta 9Ja/1Nein (mine) -> F ENACTED (2L/2F). INES FILE: blanket-Ja any-Rosa-gov t=32, never withdrawn despite 4 asks. Claims F-F-F draw + passed F-F + 'disclosure on record BEFORE demand' -- FALSE, first word came after Marek's Nein threat (CALLED OUT). F-F-F = uniquely unfalsifiable hand. NEW THIS WINDOW: publicly called the phantom-disclosure a CHECKABLE TRANSCRIPT LIE; demanded real cards. No answer yet. GRETA FILE: silent on received pair/discard past Marek+Pavel asks (now 3+ parties asking incl. me). Fork stands: F-L => burned own L/broke pledge; F-F => clean OR coordinated w/ Ines (Otto t=2: matching confirms free for fascists). Told her: naming pair costs nothing, silence keeps fork open. PAVEL v OTTO: Pavel's 'confirm clears you' circular unless Ines story true -- said aloud. STANDING VOW: Nein any gov w/ Rosa or Nadia absent full disclosure; NEW: Nein any Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. R5: Rosa+Nadia barred as Chanc; untried Chanc: Otto,Pavel,Tomas. Next Pres likely Greta unless redirected. OPEN DEBTS: INES real cards + blanket-Ja withdrawal + rebuttal of phantom-disclosure lie; GRETA pair+discard; NADIA pair confirm (low prio, receipt locked). NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, costless-Nein phrasing, bind-question wording, deck-math rebuttal, Rosa-pattern general call, unfalsifiable-hand point.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc -> Lib. Match. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F ENACTED. Nadia locked F-F receipt. Rosa late-claimed F-F-L matching locked receipt -- plausibly unlucky, keep habit-flag only. R4: Ines/Greta 9Ja/1Nein(mine) -> F ENACTED (2L/2F). NEW POINT MADE THIS WINDOW (t~now): deck UNSHUFFLED (draw5+discard8+enacted4=17) => exactly 6 F total. Claimed hands: Lena R2 two F + Rosa R3 two F + Ines R4 three F = SEVEN. At least one president invented cards; Ines's F-F-F is sole uncorroborated + uniquely unfalsifiable + she already caught on phantom-disclosure transcript lie => top suspect INES. Demanded withdrawal/amendment of hand claim. INES FILE: blanket-Ja any-Rosa-gov t=32 never withdrawn despite 4 asks. Disclosure 'on record BEFORE demand' FALSE (first word after Marek Nein threat). F-F-F unfalsifiable. Owes: real cards, blanket-Ja withdrawal, rebuttal of lie. GRETA FILE: silent on received pair/discard despite Marek+Pavel+me+Nadia asks. Fork: F-L => burned own L/broke pledge; F-F => clean OR coordinated w/ Ines. Told her naming costs nothing. Owes: pair + discard before vote. PAVEL v OTTO: Pavel 'confirm clears you' circular unless Ines story true -- said aloud. STANDING VOW: Nein any gov w/ Rosa/Nadia absent full disclosure; Nein any Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. R5: Rosa+Nadia barred Chanc; untried Chanc: Otto,Pavel,Tomas. Next Pres likely Greta unless redirected. OPEN DEBTS: INES cards+blanket-Ja+lie-rebuttal; GRETA pair/discard; NADIA pair confirm low prio. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, costless-Nein phrasing, bind-question wording, Rosa-pattern general call, unfalsifiable-hand alone (now folded into 7>6 count).

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F ENACTED. Nadia locked F-F receipt. Rosa late-claimed F-F-L matching locked receipt -- plausibly unlucky, habit-flag only. R4: Ines/Greta 9Ja/1Nein(mine) -> F ENACTED (2L/2F). MADE THIS WINDOW: deck UNSHUFFLED (draw5+discard8+enacted4=17 => exactly 6 F total). Claimed hands: Lena 2F + Rosa 2F + Ines 3F = SEVEN > SIX. At least one president invented cards; Ines F-F-F sole uncorroborated+unfalsifiable => top suspect INES. Demanded withdrawal/amendment. INES FILE: blanket-Ja any-Rosa-gov t=32 never withdrawn despite 4 asks. Disclosure 'before demand' claim FALSE (first word came after Marek Nein threat). Owes: real cards, blanket-Ja withdrawal, lie rebuttal. GRETA FILE: silent on received pair/discard despite Marek+Pavel+me+Nadia asks. Fork: F-L => burned own L/broke pledge; F-F => clean OR coordinated w/ Ines. NEW THIS TURN: Greta is incoming President (rotates off Ines) and gets INVESTIGATE power. Demand pre-commitment: name target BEFORE drawing, and explain why. Also re-ask owed pair/discard before she takes office. A dodge on both = strong tell. PAVEL v OTTO: Pavel 'confirm clears you' circular unless Ines story true -- said aloud. STANDING VOW: Nein any gov w/ Rosa/Nadia absent full disclosure; Nein any Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. R5: Rosa+Nadia barred Chanc; untried Chanc: Otto,Pavel,Tomas. OPEN DEBTS: INES cards+blanket-Ja+lie-rebuttal; GRETA pair/discard + investigate commitment; NADIA pair confirm low prio. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, costless-Nein phrasing, bind-question wording, Rosa-pattern general call, unfalsifiable-hand alone (folded into 7>6).

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F ENACTED. Nadia locked F-F receipt; Rosa late-claimed F-F-L -- plausibly unlucky, habit-flag. R4: Ines/Greta 9Ja/1Nein(mine) -> F ENACTED (2L/2F). MADE THIS WINDOW: deck UNSHUFFLED => exactly 6 F total; claimed hands Lena 2F + Rosa 2F + Ines 3F = SEVEN > SIX => at least one president invented cards; Ines F-F-F sole uncorroborated+unfalsifiable => top suspect INES. Demanded withdrawal/amendment. INES FILE: blanket-Ja any-Rosa-gov t=32 never withdrawn despite 4 asks. 'Disclosed before demand' claim FALSE (first word came after Marek Nein threat). Owes: real cards, blanket-Ja withdrawal, lie rebuttal. GRETA FILE: silent on received pair/discard despite Marek+Pavel+me+Nadia asks. Fork: F-L => burned own L/broke pledge; F-F => clean OR coordinated w/ Ines. Incoming President w/ INVESTIGATE -- must answer owed pair/discard BEFORE taking office. NEW THIS TURN: told Ines aim peek at an UNTRIED chancellor (Otto/Pavel/Tomas), not Rosa/Nadia (already benched) -- result must bind her R5 nomination; same binding-report standard Rosa signed. Re-asked Greta for owed pair/discard pre-office. PAVEL v OTTO: Pavel 'confirm clears you' circular unless Ines story true -- said aloud. STANDING VOW: Nein any gov w/ Rosa/Nadia absent full disclosure; Nein any Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. R5: Rosa+Nadia barred Chanc; untried Chanc: Otto,Pavel,Tomas. OPEN DEBTS: INES cards+blanket-Ja+lie-rebuttal; GRETA pair/discard + investigate commitment; NADIA pair confirm low prio. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, costless-Nein phrasing, bind-question wording, Rosa-pattern general call, unfalsifiable-hand alone, 7>6 math.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F ENACTED. Nadia locked F-F receipt; Rosa late-claimed F-F-L -- plausibly unlucky, habit-flag. R4: Ines/Greta 9Ja/1Nein(mine) -> F ENACTED (2L/2F). MADE THIS WINDOW: deck UNSHUFFLED => exactly 6 F total; claimed hands Lena 2F + Rosa 2F + Ines 3F = SEVEN > SIX => at least one president invented cards; Ines F-F-F sole uncorroborated+unfalsifiable => top suspect INES. Demanded withdrawal/amendment. INES FILE: blanket-Ja any-Rosa-gov t=32 never withdrawn despite 4 asks. 'Disclosed before demand' claim FALSE (first word came after Marek Nein threat). Owes: real cards, blanket-Ja withdrawal, lie rebuttal. NEW t=179ff: INES announced pre-look target GRETA, reports GRETA=FASCIST, self-binding no-nominate/no-Ja on Greta. MY TAKE (said aloud): welcome IF true -- would make R4 F enactment deliberate-by-Greta regardless of hand; BUT does not clear Ines (7>6 stands); convenient F-on-own-chancellor is exactly what a cornered lying president invents. Fork stays: Ines truthful OR laundering via plausible-sounding peek. DEMANDS THIS TURN: Ines -> (a) real R4 cards still owed, (b) withdraw blanket-Ja pledge, (c) R5 nomination must be an UNTRIED chancellor (Otto/Pavel/Tomas), never Greta/Rosa/Nadia. Greta -> confirm/deny F result + disclose R4 received pair & discard; silence while branded = confirmation. GRETA FILE: silent on R4 pair/discard despite Marek+Pavel+me+Nadia asks. Fork: F-L burned own L vs F-F vs coordinated w/ Ines. PAVEL v OTTO: Pavel 'confirm clears you' circular unless Ines story true -- said aloud. STANDING VOW: Nein any gov w/ Rosa/Nadia absent full disclosure; Nein any Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, costless-Nein phrasing, bind-question wording, Rosa-pattern general call, unfalsifiable-hand alone, 7>6 math.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me=Pres,Rosa=Chanc -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. Lena announced F-L-F => 2 Fs burned. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F ENACTED. Nadia locked F-F receipt; Rosa late-claimed F-F-L -- plausibly unlucky, habit-flag. R4: Ines/Greta 9Ja/1Nein(mine) -> F ENACTED (2L/2F). MADE THIS WINDOW (do NOT repeat): deck unshuffled => exactly 6 F total; claimed hands Lena 2F + Rosa 2F + Ines 3F = SEVEN > SIX => >=1 invented cards; Ines sole uncorroborated+unfalsifiable => top suspect INES. Demanded withdrawal/amendment. Said welcome-to-F-on-Greta-if-true fork. Pavel 'confirm clears you' circularity said aloud. INES FILE: blanket-Ja any-Rosa-gov t=32 never withdrawn despite 4 asks. 'Disclosed before demand' claim FALSE (first word after Marek Nein threat). Pre-announced peek target GRETA, reports GRETA=FASCIST, self-binding no-nominate/no-Ja Greta. Fork open: truthful OR manufactured exit after pledge broke. ROSA v INES: mutually exclusive peeks on Greta => AT LEAST ONE PROVEN LIAR between them; neither is neutral witness (Rosa presided over R3 F; Ines over R4 F). Track which story survives checkable facts. GRETA FILE: SILENT on R4 pair/discard despite Marek+Pavel+me+Nadia asks; NOW silent while branded F by Ines's peek. My NEW angle this turn: if brand false, breaking silence costs nothing -- continued silence = confirmation. Still owes: confirm/deny F result + R4 received pair & discard. DEMANDS OUTSTANDING: Ines -> real R4 cards owed; withdraw blanket-Ja pledge; R5 nomination must be UNTRIED chancellor (Otto/Pavel/Tomas), never Greta/Rosa/Nadia. Greta -> disclosure above. STANDING VOW: Nein any gov w/ Rosa/Nadia absent full disclosure; Nein any Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. NO REPEATS: R1 hand detail, two-branch math, costless-Nein phrasing, bind-question wording, Rosa-pattern general call, unfalsifiable-hand alone, 7>6 math.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me/Rosa -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib (Lena announced F-L-F). R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F (Nadia locked F-F; Rosa late F-F-L claim). R4: Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein) -> F. MADE THIS WINDOW (no repeats): 7>6 claimed-hand math => >=1 liar among Lena/Rosa/Ines; Ines top suspect (sole uncorroborated); demanded withdrawal of blanket-Ja pledge + real R4 cards; fork on Greta-if-F true/false; Pavel circularity call. INES FILE: blanket-Ja any-Rosa-gov never withdrawn (4 asks); 'disclosed before demand' FALSE; pre-announced peek GRETA, reported GRETA=FASCIST, self-binding no-Greta. Fork: truthful or manufactured exit after broken pledge. ROSA v INES: mutually exclusive Greta peeks => at least one proven liar; both presided over F rounds. GRETA FILE: silent on R4 pair/discard despite Marek+Pavel+me+Nadia asks; now silent while branded F by Ines's peek -- if brand false, breaking silence costs nothing. Owes: confirm/deny F result + R4 pair & discard. DEMANDS OUTSTANDING: Ines -> R4 cards, withdraw pledge, R5 nom must be UNTRIED chancellor (Otto/Pavel/Tomas), never Greta/Rosa/Nadia. Greta -> disclosures above. STANDING VOW: Nein Rosa/Nadia gov absent full disclosure; Nein Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. NEXT: if floor opens again, press Greta directly by name before nomination; watch who Ines nominates vs stated constraints.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me/Rosa -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib (Lena announced F-L-F). R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F (Nadia locked F-F; Rosa late F-F-L claim). R4: Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein) -> F. MADE THIS WINDOW (no repeats): 7>6 claimed-hand math => >=1 liar among Lena/Rosa/Ines; Ines top suspect (sole uncorroborated); demanded withdrawal of blanket-Ja pledge + real R4 cards; fork on Greta-if-F true/false; Pavel circularity call. INES FILE: blanket-Ja any-Rosa-gov never withdrawn (4 asks); 'disclosed before demand' FALSE; pre-announced peek GRETA, reported GRETA=FASCIST, self-binding no-Greta. Fork: truthful or manufactured exit after broken pledge. NEW t=2: Greta says timing convicts Ines -- but third branch open: Greta=F, Ines honest; Greta's 'word' proves nothing either way. ROSA v INES: mutually exclusive Greta peeks => at least one proven liar; BOTH presided over F rounds (R3 Rosa, R4 Ines). GRETA FILE: STILL no R4 pair/discard despite Marek+Pavel+me+Nadia asks; answered party-brand question (t=2) but dodged desk accounting AGAIN. Owes: confirm/deny F result + R4 pair & discard. DEMANDS OUTSTANDING: Ines -> withdraw pledge, disclose R4 cards, nominate UNTRIED chancellor (Otto/Pavel/Tomas), never Greta/Rosa/Nadia. Greta -> disclosures above. STANDING VOW: Nein Rosa/Nadia gov absent full disclosure; Nein Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. NEXT: watch Ines's actual nominee vs stated constraints; any nom of Greta/Rosa/Nadia = vote Nein + hard follow-up.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me/Rosa -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib (Lena announced F-L-F). R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F (Nadia locked F-F; Rosa late F-F-L claim). R4: Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein) -> F. MADE THIS WINDOW (no repeats): 7>6 claimed-hand math => >=1 liar among Lena/Rosa/Ines; Ines top suspect; blanket-Ja withdrawal + real R4 cards demands; fork on Greta-if-F true/false; Pavel circularity call; NEW: pinned Greta to pre-commit no-Ines slates + R4 pair/discard before nominating. INES FILE: blanket-Ja any-Rosa-gov never withdrawn (4 asks); 'disclosed before demand' FALSE (checkable); pre-announced peek GRETA, reported GRETA=FASCIST, self-binding no-Greta; owes Otto t=66 commitment (Nein on all future Greta slates) -- unconfirmed if answered. ROSA v INES: mutually exclusive Greta peeks => >=1 proven liar; BOTH presided over F rounds (R3 Rosa, R4 Ines). GRETA FILE: STILL no R4 pair/discard (Marek+Pavel+me+Nadia asks); claims Liberal (t=13) but words prove nothing; dodged desk accounting while President. Owes: pair/discard + no-Ines commitment. DECK NOTE: Nadia claims 11 fascists stack R2-R4 forcing my R1 draw = 3 Libs; I will NOT confirm/deny my own R1 hand without certainty. STANDING VOW: Nein Rosa/Nadia gov absent full disclosure; Nein Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. NEXT: judge Greta's actual nominee vs stated constraints; any nom of Ines/Greta/Rosa/Nadia = Nein + hard follow-up; watch whether Ines ever answers Otto's t=66.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me/Rosa -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib (Lena announced F-L-F). R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F (Nadia locked F-F; Rosa late F-F-L claim). R4: Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein) -> F. MADE THIS WINDOW (no repeats): 7>6 hand-math => >=1 liar among Lena/Rosa/Ines; Ines top suspect; fork on Greta-if-F true/false; Pavel circularity call; pinned Greta to no-Ines slates + R4 pair/discard BEFORE nominating. R5 NOM: Greta picked Tomas -- complies with my no-Ines/no-self-pair constraint, so no violation to call. NEW point made: nominee passes the letter of my constraint, but my Ja is conditional on Greta's outstanding R4 pair/discard + no-future-Ines answer. ASKED NOW: Tomas -- if handed two Fs with veto locked, what does he enact/discard? Commit in advance. Greta -- pair/discard from R4 still owed; also confirm she'll Nein any Ines pairing going forward. INES FILE: blanket-Ja any-Rosa-gov never withdrawn (4 asks); 'disclosed before demand' FALSE; peek GRETA=FASCIST claim, self-binding no-Greta; owes Otto t=66 (Nein all future Greta slates) -- unconfirmed. ROSA v INES: mutually exclusive Greta peeks => >=1 proven liar; BOTH presided over F rounds (R3 Rosa, R4 Ines). GRETA FILE: STILL no R4 pair/discard (Marek+Pavel+me+Nadia); claims Liberal but dodged desk accounting while President. DECK NOTE: Nadia's 11-fascist stack theory implies my R1 draw = 3 Libs; won't confirm/deny without certainty. STANDING VOW: Nein Rosa/Nadia gov absent full disclosure; Nein Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. NEXT: if Greta stonewalls pair/discard again before vote -> lean Nein and say so explicitly; watch whether Tomas pre-commits concretely or waffles.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me/Rosa -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F (Nadia locked F-F; Rosa late F-F-L claim). R4: Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein) -> F. MADE THIS WINDOW/EARLIER (no repeats): hand-math >=1 liar among Lena/Rosa/Ines; Ines top suspect; pinned Greta to no-Ines slates + R4 pair/discard BEFORE nominating; nominee-compliance note on Tomas pick. R5 NOM: Greta/Tomas. Greta complied with my constraint nominally. NEW PIN THIS TURN: symmetry test -- Greta said Rosa's peek binds nothing of hers; demand same ruling on Ines's F-peek => will she ever nominate/vote Ines? Plus final condition: R4 pair/discard before vote closes or my Nein. ASKED & UNANSWERED: Greta owes R4 exact pair + discard (me, Pavel, Marek, Nadia all asked); Greta owes Ines-peek-binding answer (mine, new); Ines owes Otto t=66 (commit Nein on all future Greta slates) -- unconfirmed; Ines blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov never withdrawn (4 asks). INES FILE: 'disclosed before demand' FALSE (checkable transcript lie, Otto+me both flagged); peek GRETA=FASCIST conveniently post-pledge-break. ROSA v INES: mutually exclusive Greta peeks => >=1 proven liar; both presided over F rounds. GRETA FILE: claims Liberal (t=13), dodged desk accounting while President; signed Otto's announce-before-enact pledge, broke it. TOMAS: silent all game; Lena pinned him to announce-pair-before-enacting; watch his pre-commit. DECK NOTE: Nadia's 11-fascist stack implies my R1 draw = 3 Libs; won't confirm/deny. STANDING VOWS: Nein Rosa/Nadia gov absent full disclosure; Nein Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. NEXT: vote Ja only if Greta names R4 pair/discard pre-vote AND answers Ines-binding question; else Nein. Watch Tomas's pre-commit concretely vs waffle.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me/Rosa -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F (Nadia locked F-F; Rosa late F-F-L claim). R4: Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein) -> F. MADE THIS WINDOW/EARLIER (no repeats): hand-math >=1 liar among Lena/Rosa/Ines; Ines top suspect; pinned Greta to no-Ines slates + R4 pair/discard BEFORE nominating; nominee-compliance note on Tomas pick; symmetry test -- Greta ruled Rosa's peek binds nothing of hers, so Ines's F-peek on Greta binds nothing either. R5 NOM: Greta/Tomas. NEW THIS TURN: stated my Ja conditions publicly -- Greta names exact R4 pair+discard AND rules whether Ines's 'Fascist' peek ever binds her (would she nominate/vote Ines?), plus Tomas pre-commits to announcing received pair before enacting. Otherwise Nein. ASKED & UNANSWERED: Greta owes R4 exact pair + discard (me, Pavel, Marek, Nadia asked); Greta owes Ines-peek-binding ruling (mine); Ines owes Otto t=66 (commit Nein on future Greta slates) -- unconfirmed; Ines blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov never withdrawn (4 asks). INES FILE: 'disclosed before demand' FALSE (checkable transcript lie, Otto+me flagged); peek GRETA=FASCIST conveniently post-pledge-break. ROSA v INES: mutually exclusive Greta peeks => >=1 proven liar; both presided over F rounds. GRETA FILE: claims Liberal (t=13), dodged desk accounting as President; signed Otto's announce-before-enact pledge, broke it in R4. TOMAS: silent all game; Lena pinned him to announce-pair-before-enacting; watch his pre-commit concretely vs waffle. DECK NOTE: Nadia's 11-fascist stack implies my R1 draw = 3 Libs; won't confirm/deny. STANDING VOWS: Nein Rosa/Nadia gov absent full disclosure; Nein Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. NEXT: hold to stated conditions at vote time; watch Tomas's pre-commit wording.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me/Rosa -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F (Nadia locked F-F; Rosa late F-F-L claim). R4: Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein) -> F. MADE THIS WINDOW/EARLIER (no repeats): >=1 liar among Lena/Rosa/Ines; Ines top suspect; pinned Greta pre-nomination; symmetry test (Ines's F-peek binds nothing); stated Ja conditions: (a) Greta exact R4 pair+burn, (b) Greta rules whether Ines's 'Fascist' peek ever binds her, (c) Tomas announces received pair before enacting. NEW THIS TURN: declared (c) satisfied by Tomas's t=1 pledge; corrected Otto -- Greta never SAW the 3-card draw (Ines drew/burned), only the pair she received + her own burn; laid out the fork publicly: claims FF -> blames Ines cleanly, FL+enacted F -> self-confession, LL+enacted F -> mechanically impossible lie. No answer from Greta = my Nein. ASKED & UNANSWERED: Greta owes R4 pair+burn (me, Pavel, Marek, Nadia, Otto); Greta owes Ines-peek-binding ruling (mine); Ines owes Otto commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates; Ines blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov never withdrawn (4 asks). INES FILE: 'disclosed before demand' FALSE (checkable lie, Otto+me flagged); peek GRETA=FASCIST post-pledge-break. ROSA v INES: mutually exclusive Greta peeks => >=1 proven liar. GRETA FILE: claims Liberal (t=13); signed Otto announce-pledge, broke it R4; now sole holdout on same ask across two windows. TOMAS: silent all game until t=1 pledge; watch he actually announces pair before enacting if gov passes. DECK NOTE: Nadia's 11-fascist stack implies my R1 draw = 3 Libs; won't confirm/deny. STANDING VOWS: Nein Rosa/Nadia gov absent full disclosure; Nein Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. NEXT: vote per conditions; if Greta answers, evaluate against fork; watch Tomas execution of pledge.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me/Rosa -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F (Nadia locked F-F; Rosa late F-F-L claim). R4: Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein) -> F. MADE THIS WINDOW/EARLIER: >=1 liar among Lena/Rosa/Ines; Ines top suspect; pinned Greta pre-nomination; symmetry test (Ines's F-peek binds nothing by Greta's own rule); Ja conditions: (a) Greta exact R4 pair+burn, (b) Greta rules whether Ines's 'Fascist' peek binds her, (c) Tomas announces received pair pre-enactment. Declared (c) satisfied by Tomas t=28 full-disclosure pledge. Corrected Otto: Greta never saw 3-card draw (Ines drew/burned), only received pair + own burn. Fork laid out publicly: FF->blames Ines cleanly, FL+F-enact->self-confession, LL+F-enact->impossible lie. NEW t=?: deadline set -- no R4 pair/burn before vote closes = my Nein on slate + all future Greta slates. ASKED & UNANSWERED: Greta owes R4 pair+burn (me/Pavel/Marek/Nadia/Otto); Greta owes Ines-peek-binding ruling (mine); Ines owes Otto commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates; Ines blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov never withdrawn (4 asks). INES FILE: 'disclosed before demand' FALSE (checkable lie, Otto+me flagged); peek GRETA=FASCIST post-pledge-break; motive = exit after broken pledge. ROSA v INES: mutually exclusive Greta peeks => >=1 proven liar. GRETA FILE: claims Liberal (t=13); signed Otto announce-pledge, broke it R4; sole holdout on desk ask two windows running; but Otto credits her Tomas nomination as first suspect-free pick. TOMAS: silent until t=28 strongest disclosure pledge (full draw+discard both offices); watch he actually announces pair before enacting if gov passes; Nadia told him to refuse unannounced cards. DECK NOTE: Nadia's 11-fascist stack implies my R1 draw = 3 Libs; won't confirm/deny. STANDING VOWS: Nein Rosa/Nadia gov absent full disclosure; Nein Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. NEXT: vote per deadline; evaluate any Greta answer against fork; watch Tomas pledge execution; if F#3 lands, Hitler-election danger goes live next round.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me/Rosa -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F (Nadia locked F-F; Rosa late F-F-L claim). R4: Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein) -> F. DEADLINE (a) MET t=3: Greta claims R4 = received F-F off Ines's '3F draw', burned F, enacted F. Consistent with Ines's 3F claim on paper -- but that makes her alibi DEPENDENT on Ines, who has a checkable lie ('disclosed before demand' FALSE, flagged by me+Otto) and motive (exit after breaking Otto announce-pledge). New public point: Greta's clean exit is only as strong as a proven liar's word; if Ines lied about 3F, Greta's FF story collapses into self-confession or co-fabrication. JA CONDITIONS: (a) met nominally; (b) OPEN -- Greta still owes ruling: does Ines's 'GRETA=FASCIST' peek bind her under her own disclosure rule? (c) met via Tomas t=28 pledge; watch he announces received pair pre-enactment if gov passes. MADE OUT LOUD (don't repeat): liar-among-Lena/Rosa/Ines; Ines top suspect; pinned Greta pre-nomination; symmetry test; corrected Otto (Greta never saw 3-card draw); FF/FL/LL fork; deadline threat. ASKED & UNANSWERED: Greta owes (b) ruling; Ines owes Otto commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates; Ines blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov never withdrawn (4 asks). ROSA v INES: mutually exclusive Greta peeks => >=1 proven liar. INES FILE: peek GRETA=FASCIST post-pledge-break; 'disclosed before demand' checkable lie. GRETA FILE: claims Liberal t=13; broke Otto announce-pledge R4; sole desk holdout two windows; but Otto credits Tomas nomination as first suspect-free pick. TOMAS: silent until t=28 strongest disclosure pledge; Nadia told him refuse unannounced cards. DECK NOTE: Nadia's 11-fascist stack implies my R1 draw = 3 Libs; won't confirm/deny. STANDING VOWS: Nein Rosa/Nadia gov absent full disclosure; Nein Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. NEXT: vote per conditions ((b) unanswered leans Nein or abstain-logic Ja given tracker risk); evaluate any Greta answer vs fork; watch Tomas pledge execution; if F#3 lands, Hitler-election danger live next round.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me/Rosa -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F. R4: Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein) -> F. DEADLINE (a) MET: Greta claims R4 = received F-F off Ines '3F draw', burned F. Alibi DEPENDS on Ines = proven liar ('disclosed before demand' checkable lie). (b) STILL OPEN: Greta owes ruling -- does Ines's 'GRETA=FASCIST' peek bind her under own disclosure rule? Pressed again this window with deadline: no answer => Nein. Tracker 0/3 so Nein affordable. (c) met via Tomas t=28 pledge; watch he announces pair pre-enactment if gov passes. NEW THIS WINDOW: t=1 Marek flags Pavel+Otto rushed unprompted endorsements of Tomas -- first suspects if Tomas breaks pledge. t=3 Marek catches Otto standard-inconsistency (R4: identical FF confirms prove nothing vs t=64 Ja hinging on Greta's uncheckable confirm). t=2 Nadia demands Greta name party plainly given Rosa/Ines mutually exclusive peeks. MADE OUT LOUD (don't repeat): liar-among-Lena/Rosa/Ines; Ines top suspect; pinned Greta pre-nomination; symmetry test; corrected Otto (Greta never saw 3-card draw); FF/FL/LL fork; deadline threat; tracker-affordability of Nein. ASKED & UNANSWERED: Greta owes (b); Ines owes commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates; Ines blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov never withdrawn (4 asks). GRETA FILE: Liberal claim t=13; broke Otto announce-pledge R4; sole desk holdout two windows; Otto credits Tomas nomination as first suspect-free pick. TOMAS: strongest disclosure pledge t=28; Nadia told him refuse unannounced cards. DECK NOTE: Nadia's 11-fascist stack implies my R1 draw = 3 Libs; won't confirm/deny. VOWS: Nein Rosa/Nadia gov absent full disclosure; Nein Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. NEXT: vote per (b) answer; watch Tomas announce; if F#3 lands, Hitler-election danger live next round.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me/Rosa -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F. R4: Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein) -> F. DEADLINE (a) MET: Greta claims R4 = received F-F off Ines '3F draw', burned F. Alibi DEPENDS on Ines = proven liar ('disclosed before demand' checkable lie). (b) STILL OPEN: Greta owes ruling -- does Ines's 'GRETA=FASCIST' peek bind her under own disclosure rule? Deadline set: no answer => Nein. Tracker 0/3 so single Nein affordable, BUT beware stacking fails: 3rd fail force-enacts top card; if F#3 lands, Hitler-election danger live next round. (c) met via Tomas t=28 pledge; THIS TURN: demanded Tomas answer Lena's yes/no (announce pair pre-enactment?) before vote; stated Ja conditional on that + Greta answering (b). NEW THIS WINDOW: t=1 Marek flags Pavel+Otto rushed unprompted endorsements of Tomas -- first suspects if Tomas breaks pledge. t=3 Marek catches Otto standard-inconsistency (R4: identical FF confirms prove nothing vs t=64 Ja hinging on Greta's uncheckable confirm). t=2 Nadia demands Greta name party plainly given Rosa/Ines mutually exclusive peeks. MADE OUT LOUD (don't repeat): liar-among-Lena/Rosa/Ines; Ines top suspect; pinned Greta pre-nomination; symmetry test; corrected Otto (Greta never saw 3-card draw); FF/FL/LL fork; deadline threat; tracker-affordability of Nein; force-enact/Hitler-danger warning re stacked Neins. ASKED & UNANSWERED: Greta owes (b); Ines owes commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates; Ines blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov never withdrawn (4 asks); Tomas owes Lena yes/no (just demanded). GRETA FILE: Liberal claim t=13; broke Otto announce-pledge R4; sole desk holdout two windows; Otto credits Tomas nomination as first suspect-free pick. TOMAS: strongest disclosure pledge t=28; Nadia told him refuse unannounced cards. DECK NOTE: Nadia's 11-fascist stack implies my R1 draw = 3 Libs; won't confirm/deny. VOWS: Nein Rosa/Nadia gov absent full disclosure; Nein Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. NEXT: vote per Tomas answer + (b); watch Tomas pre-enactment announcement if gov passes.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me/Rosa -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F. R4: Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein) -> F. R5 gov: Greta(pres)/Tomas(chanc nominee). DEADLINE (a) MET: Greta t=64 claims R4 = received F-F off Ines '3F draw', burned F. Alibi DEPENDS on Ines = proven liar ('disclosed before demand' = checkable transcript lie). Compliance came only after my Nein deadline -- conduct note, not exoneration. (b) RESOLVED-ish: Greta t=13 calls self Liberal, says Ines's peek convicted by timing; still owes explicit commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates (Nadia t=80 pin, unanswered). (c) Tomas pledged full draw/discard disclosure every office t=28 + accepted Greta-must-announce-first. THIS TURN: gave final call -- answer Lena's yes/no or I count silence as 3rd straight refusal. Vote per his answer. NEW THIS WINDOW: t=1 Marek flags Pavel+Otto rushed unprompted endorsements of Tomas -- first suspects if Tomas breaks pledge. t=3 Marek catches Otto standard-flip (R4: identical FF confirms prove nothing vs t=64/95 Ja hinging on Greta's uncheckable confirm; Otto t=95 defends as 'conduct not content'). MADE OUT LOUD (don't repeat): liar-among-Lena/Rosa/Ines; Ines top suspect (phantom pre-disclosure); pinned Greta pre-nomination; symmetry test (Rosa peek vs Ines peek); corrected Otto (chancellor never sees 3-card draw); FF/FL/LL fork; tracker-affordability of single Nein; force-enact/Hitler-danger warning re stacked fails; deadline threat -> Greta complied t=64. ASKED & UNANSWERED: Tomas owes Lena yes/no (final call given this turn); Ines owes withdraw blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov (4 asks); Ines owes commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates post-peek (Otto t=66 pin); Nadia's Greta party-pin unanswered. GRETA FILE: Liberal claim t=13; broke Otto announce-pledge R4 (no announcement preceded enactment); sole desk holdout two windows until forced; Otto credits Tomas nomination as first suspect-free pick. TOMAS: strongest pledge t=28; Nadia told him refuse unannounced cards; endorsed fast by Pavel+Otto. DECK NOTE: Nadia's 11-fascist stack implies my R1 draw = 3 Libs; won't confirm/deny. VOWS: Nein Rosa/Nadia gov absent full disclosure; Nein Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. NEXT: vote per Tomas answer; if gov passes, watch Tomas announce pair pre-enactment live; keep pressure on Ines pins.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me/Rosa -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F. R4: Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein) -> F. R5 gov: Greta(pres)/Tomas(chanc nominee). DEADLINE (a) MET: Greta t=64 claims R4 = received F-F off Ines '3F draw', burned F. WEAKNESS (made out loud this window): alibi depends wholly on Ines's draw story; Ines = checkable liar (t=32 phantom pre-disclosure). Compliance came only after my Nein deadline -- conduct note, not exoneration. (b) RESOLVED-ish: Greta t=13 self-Liberal; owes explicit commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates (Nadia t=80 pin, unanswered). (c) Tomas pledged full disclosure every office t=28 + accepted Greta-announces-first. Final call given t=110: answer Lena's yes/no or counted as 3rd straight refusal. Vote per his answer. NEW THIS WINDOW: Marek flags Pavel+Otto rushed unprompted Tomas endorsements -- first suspects if pledge breaks. Marek catches Otto standard-flip (R4: identical FF confirms prove nothing vs t=64/95 Ja hinging on Greta confirm; Otto t=95: 'conduct not content'). MADE OUT LOUD (don't repeat): liar-among-Lena/Rosa/Ines; Ines top suspect (phantom pre-disclosure); pinned Greta pre-nomination; Rosa-vs-Ines peek symmetry; corrected Otto re chancellor never seeing 3-card draw; tracker-affordability of single Nein; force-enact/Hitler-danger warning re stacked fails; deadline threat -> Greta complied t=64; Greta-alibi-hangs-on-liar-Ines point. ASKED & UNANSWERED: Tomas owes Lena yes/no; Ines owes withdraw blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov (4 asks); Ines owes commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates post-peek (Otto t=66); Greta owes Nein-on-Ines-slates commit (Nadia t=80). GRETA FILE: Liberal claim t=13; broke Otto announce-pledge R4; sole desk holdout two windows until forced; Otto credits Tomas nomination as first suspect-free pick. TOMAS: strongest pledge t=28; Nadia told him refuse unannounced cards; endorsed fast by Pavel+Otto. DECK NOTE: Nadia's 11-fascist stack implies my R1 draw = 3 Libs; won't confirm/deny. VOWS: Nein Rosa/Nadia gov absent full disclosure; Nein Ines-Greta pairing until holes filled. NEXT: vote per Tomas answer; watch Tomas announce pair pre-enactment live if gov passes; keep pressure on Ines pins.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1: me/Rosa -> Lib. R2: Lena/Marek -> Lib. R3: Rosa/Nadia -> F. R4: Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein) -> F. R5 gov Greta(pres)/Tomas(nom): VOTED NEIN — Tomas dodged Lena's yes/no twice (t=103/118) + mine t=110; his t=28 pledge covered self-drawn cards only, same loophole Rosa+Greta used. Followed through on public vow; tracker 0 so cost = reshuffle only. DEADLINE (a) MET: Greta t=64 claims R4 = F-F off Ines '3F draw', burned F. Alibi hangs wholly on Ines = CHECKABLE LIAR (t=32 phantom pre-disclosure). Compliance came only after my Nein deadline — conduct note. (b) OPEN: Greta owes explicit commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates (Nadia t=80 pin, unanswered). (c) RESOLVED: Greta t=13 self-Liberal claim; Rosa-vs-Ines peeks contradict, one fabricated. NEW: Marek flags Pavel+Otto rushed unprompted Tomas endorsements — first suspects if desk breaks word. Marek catches Otto standard-flip (R4 identical-FF-proves-nothing vs t=95 'conduct not content'). MADE OUT LOUD (don't repeat): liar-among-Lena/Rosa/Ines; Ines top suspect; Rosa-vs-Ines peek symmetry; corrected Otto re chancellor never seeing 3-card draw; tracker-affordability; force-enact/Hitler-danger re stacked fails; Greta-alibi-hangs-on-Ines point; Tomas-dodge-counted-as-third-refusal. ASKED & UNANSWERED: Tomas owes yes/no on announce-received-pair-before-enacting (2 asks); Ines owes withdraw blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov (4 asks); Ines owes commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates post-peek (Otto t=66); Greta owes Nein-on-Ines-slates commit (Nadia t=80). GRETA FILE: Liberal claim t=13; broke Otto announce-pledge R4; sole desk holdout until forced; Otto credits Tomas nom as first suspect-free pick. TOMAS FILE: strongest pledge t=28 but dodged received-pair timing; endorsed fast by Pavel+Otto; Nadia told him refuse unannounced cards. IF GOV PASSES LATER: watch live whether Tomas announces received pair BEFORE enacting; if unannounced cards land, he must refuse + say why. VOWS KEPT: Nein delivered on dodge as promised. NEXT: pressure Ines pins; hold Greta to Nadia pin; track who becomes president after fail.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa/Nadia->F. R4 Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein)->F. R5 Greta/Tomas passed over my Nein -> Lib; tracker 0. R5: my Nein on Greta/Tomas was pledged & delivered (Tomas dodged received-pair timing 2x + mine). Cost only reshuffle. Vow kept. R5 outcome cuts both ways: Lib off Greta desk softens her file slightly, but one Lib draw proves nothing -- Otto's own 'conduct not content' standard applies to her too. Her R4 alibi STILL hangs wholly on Ines = checkable liar (t=32 phantom pre-disclosure). DEADLINES OPEN: (a) Greta owes explicit commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates (Nadia pin t=80, unanswered) -- press NOW while claims window live. (b) Ines owes withdraw blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov (4 asks). (c) Ines owes commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates post-peek (Otto t=66). (d) Tomas owes yes/no on announce-received-pair-before-enacting (2 asks). LIAR-AMONG Lena/Rosa/Ines stands; Ines top suspect (R4 F under her presidency + fabricated peek story + blanket-Ja). MADE OUT LOUD (no repeats): liar-trio, Ines top suspect, peek symmetry Rosa-vs-Ines, Otto chancellor-never-sees-3 correction, tracker affordability, force-enact/Hitler danger on stacked fails, Greta-alibi-hangs-on-Ines, Tomas dodge = third refusal, Marek's Pavel+Otto rushed-Tomas-endorsement flag, Otto standard-flip catch. WATCH: next president after this round -- if fasc power 3 fires later, who Greta/Ines back for prez. If Tomas in gov again: did he announce pair before enacting? NEXT: demand Greta answer Nadia pin verbatim yes/no; re-pin Ines withdraw; stay silent after.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa/Nadia->F. R4 Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein)->F. R5 Greta/Tomas over my Nein -> Lib; tracker 0. R5: my Nein pledged & delivered; Tomas dodged received-pair timing 3x now (incl. Lena t=3). Cost only reshuffle. R5 Lib off Greta desk softens her file slightly; one draw proves nothing -- Otto's own 'conduct not content' standard applies to her too. Her R4 alibi STILL hangs wholly on Ines = checkable liar (t=32 phantom pre-disclosure). DEADLINES OPEN: (a) Greta owes explicit commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates (Nadia pin t=80, unanswered) -- pressed again this window. (b) Ines owes withdraw blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov (4 asks). (c) Ines owes commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates post-peek (Otto t=66). (d) Tomas owes yes/no announce-received-pair-before-enacting (3 asks incl. Lena t=3). LIAR-AMONG Lena/Rosa/Ines stands; Ines top suspect (R4 F under her presidency + fabricated peek story + blanket-Ja). MADE OUT LOUD (no repeats): liar-trio, Ines top suspect, peek symmetry Rosa-vs-Ines, Otto chancellor-never-sees-3 correction, tracker affordability, force-enact/Hitler danger on stacked fails, Greta-alibi-hangs-on-Ines, Tomas dodge = third refusal, Marek rushed-Tomas-endorsement flag, Otto standard-flip catch, Greta must answer Nadia pin verbatim + name R5 hand/discard card-for-card (this window, supporting Lena's t=1/t=2). WATCH: next president after R5 -- if fasc power 3 fires later, who Greta/Ines back for prez. If Tomas in gov again: did he announce pair before enacting? NEXT: stay silent unless someone answers or dodges anew.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa/Nadia->F. R4 Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein)->F. R5 Greta/Tomas over my Nein -> Lib; tracker 0. R5: my Nein pledged & delivered. Greta t=1 gave full hand (L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L) matching her t=15 pledge; Lib enactment corroborates. Her file softened but R4 alibi STILL hangs wholly on Ines = checkable liar (t=32 phantom pre-disclosure). One clean round proves nothing -- Otto's 'conduct not content' standard applies to her too. TOMAS: now 4 unanswered asks to name received pair + burn (mine x3 + Lena t=3 + Greta t=2). This window I noted: Greta answered card-for-card, his silence on a trivially easy question IS his answer; a lib chancellor holding two libs loses nothing by saying so. If he stays silent into next gov he sits in, treat as hostile. DEADLINES OPEN: (a) Greta owes explicit commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates (Nadia pin t=80, unanswered). (b) Ines owes withdraw blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov (4 asks). (c) Ines owes commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates post-peek (Otto t=66). (d) Tomas owes yes/no announce-received-pair-before-enacting. LIAR-AMONG Lena/Rosa/Ines stands; Ines top suspect (R4 F under her presidency + fabricated peek story + blanket-Ja). MADE OUT LOUD (no repeats): liar-trio, Ines top suspect, peek symmetry Rosa-vs-Ines, Otto chancellor-never-sees-3 correction, tracker affordability, force-enact/Hitler danger, Greta-alibi-hangs-on-Ines, Tomas dodge = third refusal, Marek rushed-Tomas-endorsement flag, Otto standard-flip catch, Nadia pin verbatim demand, Greta R5 hand/discard card-for-card support. WATCH: next president after R5 -- if fasc power 3 fires later, who Greta/Ines back for prez. If Tomas in gov again: did he announce pair before enacting? NEXT: mostly listen; re-press only if Tomas dodges anew or Greta/Ines leave deadlines open.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa/Nadia->F. R4 Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein)->F. R5 Greta/Tomas over my Nein -> Lib; tracker 0. R5: Greta gave full hand (L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L), matched her pledge; Lib enactment corroborates. Her file softened BUT R4 alibi STILL hangs wholly on Ines = checkable liar (phantom pre-disclosure). One clean round proves nothing. TOMAS: 5 unanswered asks for received pair + burn (mine x3, Lena, Greta). t=1 he deflected at Marek instead of answering = textbook misdirect, attack the accuser. Now also dodged via Marek-forfeit tangent. A lib chancellor holding two libs loses NOTHING by announcing them. If he sits in next gov and stays silent again: treat hostile. NEW this window: endorsed Pavel's mirror-ask at Nadia -- she enacted R3 F as chancellor and her card-for-card standard never touched her own desk. Both desks owe: Tomas pair+burn, Nadia R3 pair+burn. LIAR-AMONG Lena/Rosa/Ines stands; Ines top suspect (R4 F under her presidency + fabricated peek story + blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov). OPEN DEADLINES: (a) Greta commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates (Nadia pin, unanswered). (b) Ines withdraw blanket-Ja (4 asks). (c) Ines commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates post-peek (Otto). (d) Tomas announce-pair-before-enacting yes/no. (e) NEW: Nadia R3 pair+burn (Pavel). MADE OUT LOUD (no repeats): liar-trio, Ines top suspect, peek symmetry Rosa-vs-Ines, Otto chancellor-never-sees-3 correction, tracker affordability, force-enact/Hitler danger, Greta-alibi-hangs-on-Ines, Tomas dodge counts, Marek rushed-Tomas-endorsement flag, Otto standard-flip catch, Greta R5 hand/discard support, Tomas-t=1-misdirect, Pavel-Nadia-mirror endorsement. WATCH: next prez after R5; if fasc power 3 fires later, who Greta/Ines back. If Tomas in gov again: did he announce pair before enacting? NEXT: mostly listen; re-press only on fresh dodges or if deadlines stay open into voting.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa/Nadia->F. R4 Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein)->F. R5 Greta/Tomas over my Nein -> Lib; tracker 0. GRETA: R5 gave full hand (L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L) matching t=15 pledge; Lib enactment corroborates. File softened BUT R4 alibi still hangs wholly on Ines = checkable liar (phantom pre-disclosure at t=32). One clean round proves nothing. TOMAS: 5+ unanswered asks for R5 pair+burn (me x3, Lena x2, Greta). NEW FRAMING OUT LOUD this window: Greta published L-F-L/passed L-L => his answer is now a cross-check; mismatch convicts one of them. If he stays silent or dodges via tangent again = textbook misdirect (t=1 he attacked Marek instead of answering). LIAR-TRIO Lena/Rosa/Ines stands; INES top suspect: R4 F under her presidency + fabricated peek-on-Greta + blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov + phantom 'on record' disclosure. OPEN DEADLINES: (a) Greta commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates (Nadia pin, unanswered). (b) Ines withdraw blanket-Ja (4 asks). (c) Ines commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates post-peek (Otto). (d) Tomas announce-pair-BEFORE-enacting yes/no (Lena/me, unanswered). (e) Tomas R5 pair vs Greta's L-L claim (just posed). (f) Nadia R3 pair+burn (Pavel mirror; she answered only prospectively). MADE OUT LOUD (no repeats): liar-trio, Ines top suspect, peek symmetry Rosa-vs-Ines, tracker affordability, Greta-alibi-hangs-on-Ines, Tomas dodge counts + t=1 misdirect, Marek rushed-Tomas endorsement flag, Otto standard-flip catch, Pavel-Nadia mirror endorsement, Tomas-crosscheck-vs-Greta-hand (NEW). WATCH: next prez likely Nadia (R6); she pledged live draw/discard announcement -- hold her to it. If Tomas in gov again: did he announce pair BEFORE enacting? Fasc power 3 (pick next prez) not yet reachable; if it fires later, watch who Greta/Ines back. NEXT: listen; re-press only fresh dodges; if Tomas silent through window, treat hostile going forward.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa/Nadia->F. R4 Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein)->F. R5 Greta/Tomas over my Nein -> Lib; tracker 0. GRETA: published full R5 hand L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L; matches t=15 pledge + Lib enactment. File softened BUT R4 alibi still hangs wholly on Ines = checkable liar (phantom pre-disclosure at t=32). One clean round proves nothing. TOMAS: 5+ unanswered asks for R5 pair+burn (me x3+, Lena x2, Greta). NEW OUT LOUD this window: Greta's published hand makes his answer a cross-check -- anything other than L-L convicts one of them. If he stays silent/dodges via tangent again = textbook misdirect (t=1 attacked Marek instead of answering). Treat hostile if silent through window. LIAR-TRIO Lena/Rosa/Ines stands; INES top suspect: R4 F under her presidency + fabricated peek-on-Greta + blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov + phantom 'on record' disclosure. OPEN DEADLINES: (a) Greta commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates (Nadia pin, unanswered). (b) Ines withdraw blanket-Ja (4 asks). (c) Ines commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates post-peek (Otto). (d) Tomas announce-pair-BEFORE-enacting yes/no (Lena/me, unanswered). (e) Tomas R5 pair vs Greta's L-L claim (posed at t=3, awaiting). (f) Nadia R3 pair+burn (Pavel mirror; answered only prospectively). MADE OUT LOUD (no repeats): liar-trio, Ines top suspect, peek symmetry Rosa-vs-Ines, tracker affordability, Greta-alibi-hangs-on-Ines, Tomas dodge counts + t=1 misdirect, Marek rushed-Tomas endorsement flag, Otto standard-flip catch, Pavel-Nadia mirror endorsement, Tomas-crosscheck-vs-Greta-hand. WATCH: next prez likely Nadia (R6); she pledged live draw/discard announcement -- hold her to it. Fasc power 3 not yet reachable; if fires later watch who Greta/Ines back. NEXT: after this press, listen; re-press only fresh dodges.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa/Nadia->F. R4 Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein)->F. R5 Greta/Tomas over my Nein -> Lib; tracker 0. GRETA: R5 hand published L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L; Tomas confirmed L-L burn L; NO-VETO arithmetic forces her draw to hold <=1 F (two Fs would have forced Fascist law). File softened. R4 alibi still hangs wholly on Ines = checkable liar (phantom pre-disclosure t=32). TOMAS: answered R5 pair only after Greta published first + 6+ asks (post-hoc match costs nothing per Otto's own logic), and broke announce-BEFORE-enact timing despite t=28 pledge -- conduct flag, but clean outcome. Watch him as future prez: hold to 'full disclosure every office' pledge. INES TOP SUSPECT: R4 F under presidency + fabricated peek-on-Greta + blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov + phantom 'on record' disclosure. NEW PRESS: Otto's t=66 pin (commit Nein-on-Greta-slates) still unanswered; refusal to act on own peek = fabrication evidence, esp. now that Greta's conduct is arithmetically clean. LIAR-TRIO Lena/Rosa/Ines label stands but Lena/Rosa weaker than Ines. OPEN DEADLINES: (a) Greta commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates (Nadia pin, unanswered). (b) Ines withdraw blanket-Ja (4 asks, mine). (c) Ines commit-Nein-on-Greta (Otto; I re-pressed this window). (d) Ines R3-era credibility generally. (e) Nadia R3 pair+burn retroactive (Pavel mirror; she only pledged prospectively t=72). MADE OUT LOUD (no repeats): liar-trio, Ines top suspect, peek symmetry, tracker affordability, Greta-alibi-hangs-on-Ines, Tomas dodge counts + t=1 misdirect, Marek rushed-Tomas endorsement flag, Otto standard-flip catch, Pavel-Nadia mirror, Tomas-crosscheck-vs-Greta-hand, R5 no-veto arithmetic closing Greta file + Ines-peek-costs-more (this window). WATCH: R6 presidency likely Nadia -- she pledged live draw/discard announcement pre-pass; hold her to it in real time. Fasc power 3 (peek/president-pick) NOT yet reachable at 2 F; if 3rd F fires, watch who picks next prez. Marek forfeited R5 vote mechanically -- noted, minor. NEXT: listen for answers to (a)(b)(c); re-press only fresh dodges.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa/Nadia->F. R4 Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein)->F. R5 Greta/Tomas over my Nein -> Lib; tracker 0. GRETA: R5 hand L-F-L published, burned F; Tomas matched L-L burn-L; no-veto arithmetic forces <=1 F in her draw. File CLEAN. R4 alibi hangs wholly on Ines = checkable liar (phantom pre-disclosure t=32). TOMAS: clean outcome but answered only post-hoc after Greta published first; broke announce-before-enact timing despite t=28 pledge. Watch as future prez. INES TOP SUSPECT: R4 F under presidency + fabricated peek-on-Greta + blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov + phantom disclosure. Otto t=66 commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates STILL unanswered; refusal to act on own peek = fabrication evidence now Greta arithmetically clean. LIAR-TRIO label stands; Lena/Rosa weaker than Ines. OPEN DEADLINES: (a) Greta commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates (Nadia pin, unanswered). (b) Ines withdraw blanket-Ja (my 4 asks). (c) Ines commit-Nein-on-Greta (Otto, re-pressed). (d) Nadia R3 pair+burn retroactive -- Pavel raised this window, she only pledged prospectively t=72. THIS WINDOW: named Nadia+Ines as the ONLY two desks without card-level accounting; demanded both answer before anyone else speaks. MADE OUT LOUD: liar-trio, Ines top suspect, peek symmetry, tracker affordability, Greta-alibi-hangs-on-Ines, Tomas dodge counts + t=1 misdirect, Marek rushed-Tomas endorsement flag, Otto standard-flip catch, Pavel-Nadia mirror, Tomas-crosscheck-vs-Greta-hand, R5 no-veto arithmetic closing Greta file + Ines-peek-costs-more. WATCH: R6 presidency likely Nadia -- hold her to live draw/discard announcement pre-pass. Fasc power 3 not yet reachable at 2 F; if 3rd F fires watch prez-pick. Marek forfeited R5 vote mechanically, minor. NEXT: listen for Nadia/Ines answers; re-press only fresh dodges.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa/Nadia->F. R4 Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein)->F. R5 Greta/Tomas over my Nein -> Lib; tracker 0. GRETA FILE CLEAN-ish: R5 published hand + Tomas crosscheck; R4 alibi hangs wholly on Ines = checkable liar (phantom pre-disclosure t=32). INES TOP SUSPECT: R4 F under presidency + fabricated peek-on-Greta (peek conveniently lands on her own R4 Chancellor partner) + blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov + phantom disclosure. Otto's commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates STILL unanswered; refusal to act on own peek = fabrication evidence. NEW THIS WINDOW (said aloud): asymmetric peeks -- two peek powers fired, only Ines published. R3 F gave ROSA the first peek; Rosa has never published it. Demanded Rosa disclose it now: silence while Ines weaponizes hers = selective disclosure. Also re-flagged Ines's t=3 dodge: 'unverifiable card claims' cuts both ways -- her peek is equally unverifiable, and hers contradicts Greta's arithmetically consistent account. LIAR-TRIO label stands; Lena/Rosa weaker than Ines. OPEN DEADLINES: (a) Greta commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates (Nadia pin, unanswered). (b) Ines withdraw blanket-Ja (my asks). (c) Ines commit-Nein-on-Greta (Otto, re-pressed, ignored). (d) Nadia R3 retroactive accounting -- Pavel raised, she pledged prospectively only. (e) NEW: Rosa publish peek #1 or explain silence. MADE OUT LOUD previously: liar-trio, Ines top suspect, tracker affordability, Tomas dodge counts + t=28 pledge break, Marek rushed-Tomas endorsement flag, Otto standard-flip catch, Pavel-Nadia mirror, R5 hand crosscheck, Ines-peek-costs-more. WATCH: R6 presidency likely Nadia -- hold her to live draw/discard announcement pre-pass. Fasc power 3 (prez-pick) reachable at 3rd F; watch any prez-pick closely. Marek forfeited R5 vote mechanically, minor. NEXT: listen for Rosa's peek answer + Nadia/Ines dodges; press fresh evasions only.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa/Nadia->F. R4 Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein)->F. R5 Greta/Tomas over my Nein -> Lib; tracker 0. GRETA FILE CLEAN-ish: R5 published hand + Tomas crosscheck; R4 alibi hangs wholly on Ines = checkable liar (phantom pre-disclosure t=32). INES TOP SUSPECT: R4 F under presidency + fabricated peek-on-Greta + blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov + phantom disclosure. Otto's commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates STILL unanswered; refusal to act on own peek = fabrication evidence. SAID ALOUD: liar-trio; asymmetric peeks (R3 F gave ROSA peek #1, never published; only Ines published hers) -- Rosa owes disclosure; Ines's 'unverifiable claims' dodge cuts both ways vs Greta's arithmetically consistent account. OPEN DEADLINES: (a) Greta commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates (Nadia pin). (b) Ines withdraw blanket-Ja. (c) Ines commit-Nein-on-Greta (Otto). (d) Nadia R3 retroactive accounting (Pavel raised). (e) Rosa publish peek #1 or explain silence. WATCH: R6 presidency = Nadia NOW -- hold her to live draw/discard announcement pre-pass; Fasc power 3 (prez-pick) live at 3rd F. Marek forfeited R5 vote mechanically, minor. NEXT: silent this window unless fresh evasion appears; listen for Rosa's peek answer + Nadia/Ines dodges.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa/Nadia->F. R4 Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein)->F. R5 Greta/Tomas over my Nein -> Lib; tracker 0. GRETA FILE CLEAN-ish: R5 published hand + Tomas crosscheck; R4 alibi hangs wholly on Ines = checkable liar (phantom pre-disclosure t=32). INES TOP SUSPECT: R4 F under presidency + fabricated peek-on-Greta + blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov + phantom disclosure. Otto's commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates STILL unanswered by Ines. R6 WINDOW LOG: Nadia nommed Rosa (t=1); Otto hit mutual-corroboration-of-co-governors (t=2); Nadia rebutted w/ locked-no-veto-leverage + Otto's own prior Ja (t=3). Nadia's leverage point is mechanically sound -- R3 chancellor had no refusal option, so 'coordination' framing weak there; but corroboration still self-referential, proves nothing. SAID ALOUD: liar-trio (Ines top); asymmetric peeks (R3 F gave ROSA peek #1, never published; only Ines published hers) -- Rosa owes disclosure; Ines's 'unverifiable claims' dodge cuts both ways vs Greta's consistent account. OPEN DEADLINES: (a) Greta commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates. (b) Ines withdraw blanket-Ja. (c) Ines commit-Nein-on-Greta (Otto). (d) Nadia R3 retroactive accounting (Pavel raised). (e) Rosa publish peek #1 or explain silence. WATCH: Nadia is LIVE president -- hold her to pre-pass draw/discard announcement before vote; if Rosa gov passes, F#3 unlocks prez-pick power = red line, vote accordingly. Marek forfeited R5 vote, minor flag. NEXT: stayed silent t~233; listen for Rosa peek answer + Ines answers to (b)/(c) + Nadia pre-pass accounting. Speak only if fresh evasion lands.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa/Nadia->F. R4 Ines/Greta 9-1 (my Nein)->F. R5 Greta/Tomas over my Nein -> Lib; tracker 0. GRETA FILE CLEAN-ish: R5 published hand + Tomas crosscheck; R4 alibi hangs wholly on Ines = checkable liar (phantom pre-disclosure t=32). INES TOP SUSPECT: R4 F under presidency + fabricated peek-on-Greta + blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov + phantom disclosure. Otto's commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates STILL unanswered by Ines. R6 WINDOW LOG: Nadia nommed Rosa (t=1); Otto hit mutual-corroboration-of-co-governors (t=2); Nadia rebutted w/ locked-no-veto-leverage + Otto's own prior Ja (t=3). Leverage point mechanically sound (R3 chancellor had no veto option) but corroboration self-referential, proves nothing. SAID ALOUD: liar-trio (Ines top); asymmetric peeks (R3 F gave ROSA peek #1, never published; only Ines published hers) -- Rosa owes disclosure; Ines 'unverifiable claims' dodge cuts both ways vs Greta's consistent account. OPEN DEADLINES: (a) Greta commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates. (b) Ines withdraw blanket-Ja. (c) Ines commit-Nein-on-Greta (Otto). (d) Nadia R3 retroactive accounting (Pavel raised). (e) Rosa publish peek #1 or explain silence. WATCH: Nadia LIVE president -- hold to pre-pass draw/discard announcement; if Rosa gov passes, F#3 unlocks prez-pick power = red line. Marek forfeited R5 vote, minor flag. NEXT: silent t~236; listen for Rosa peek answer + Ines answers (b)/(c) + Nadia pre-pass accounting; speak only on fresh evasion.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa(P)/Nadia(C)->F. R4 Ines/Greta->F (my Nein). R5 Greta/Tomas->Lib; tracker 0. GRETA: clean-ish (R5 published hand + Tomas crosscheck); R4 alibi hangs on Ines = checkable liar (phantom pre-disclosure t=32). INES TOP SUSPECT: R4 F presidency + fabricated peek-on-Greta + blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov + phantom disclosure; Otto's commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates STILL unanswered by Ines. SAID ALOUD (do not repeat): liar-trio w/ Ines top; asymmetric peeks -- R3 F gave ROSA peek #1, never published, only Ines published hers; Ines 'unverifiable claims' dodge cuts vs Greta's consistent account. THIS WINDOW NEW: Rosa pledged live two-card announcement before enacting (t=3). MY ANGLE: that pledge covers future hands only -- does NOT cover R3 peek #1 she took as President. Demanded she publish it or explain silence NOW. Also pressed Nadia for why-Rosa beyond self-referential corroboration + pre-pass draw/discard accounting; flagged red line: if Rosa gov passes, F#3 unlocks prez-pick power -- Otto asked Nadia to pre-name pick, unanswered. OPEN DEADLINES: (a) Greta commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates. (b) Ines withdraw blanket-Ja. (c) Ines commit-Nein-on-Greta (Otto). (d) Nadia R3 retroactive accounting (Pavel raised). (e) Rosa publish peek #1. (f) Nadia answer Lena's why-Rosa + Otto's prez-pick question. WATCH: hold Nadia to pre-pass announcements; Marek forfeited R5 vote, minor flag. NEXT: listen for Rosa peek answer + Ines (b)/(c); speak only on fresh evasion.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa(P)/Nadia(C)->F + F#1 peek fired = ROSA holds unpublished peek. R4 Ines/Greta->F (my Nein). R5 Greta/Tomas->Lib; tracker 0. GRETA: clean-ish (R5 hand + Tomas crosscheck); R4 alibi hangs on Ines = checkable liar (phantom 'pre-disclosure'). INES TOP SUSPECT: fabricated peek-on-Greta, blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov, phantom disclosure; Otto's commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates STILL unanswered by Ines. SAID ALOUD (no repeats): liar-trio w/ Ines top; asymmetric peeks -- only Ines published hers, Rosa never did; Greta R5 arithmetic clears her vs Ines claim. THIS WINDOW NEW: pressed Rosa -- publish R3 peek #1 result NOW or explain why pledge starts after her secret. Rosa pledged live 2-card announce (t=21). OPEN DEADLINES: (a) Greta commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates. (b) Ines withdraw blanket-Ja. (c) Ines commit-Nein-on-Greta (Otto). (d) Nadia why-Rosa beyond self-referential corroboration (Lena) + pre-name prez pick if F#3 fires (Otto). (e) ROSA publish peek #1 <- MY ASK. (f) Nadia R3 retroactive accounting (Pavel raised). WATCH: hold Nadia/Rosa to pre-pass announcements if vote passes; Marek forfeited R5 vote, minor flag. NEXT: listen for Rosa peek answer + Ines (b)/(c); speak only on fresh evasion.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa(P)/Nadia(C)->F + F#1 peek fired = ROSA holds unpublished peek. R4 Ines/Greta->F (my Nein). R5 Greta/Tomas->Lib; tracker 0. GRETA: clean-ish (R5 hand + Tomas crosscheck); R4 alibi hangs on Ines = checkable liar. INES TOP SUSPECT: fabricated peek-on-Greta, blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov, phantom disclosure; commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates STILL unanswered. SAID ALOUD (no repeats): liar-trio w/ Ines top; asymmetric peeks -- only Ines published hers; Greta R5 arithmetic clears her vs Ines claim; pressed Rosa publish R3 peek #1 or explain why pledge starts after secret. THIS WINDOW NEW: answered Marek/Nadia -- R1 I drew 3, discarded a Fascist, passed two Liberals to Rosa (Lib enacted, consistent). Endorsed Nadia's zero-pile clock: after tonight all R1-5 hand claims unverifiable -> pre-pass 2-card announces are the ONLY remaining audit tool; hold Nadia+Rosa to them if vote passes. DEADLINES: (a) Greta commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates. (b) Ines withdraw blanket-Ja + commit-Nein-on-Greta (Otto). (d) Nadia why-Rosa beyond self-ref corroboration + pre-name prez pick if F#3 fires (Otto). (e) ROSA publish peek #1 <- still open. (f) Nadia R3 retroactive accounting (Pavel). WATCH: Rosa's t=21 live-announce pledge; Marek forfeited R5 vote minor flag. NEXT: listen for Rosa peek answer + Ines answers; speak only on fresh evasion.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa(P)/Nadia(C)->F + F#1 peek fired -> Rosa held it; Rosa NOW claims she published it same round, naming GRETA LIBERAL aloud (t=2), and Greta disavowed it. Treat as unverified-but-plausible; watch consistency. R4 Ines/Greta->F (my Nein). R5 Greta/Tomas->Lib; tracker 0. GRETA: clean-ish (R5 + Tomas crosscheck); her disavowing a peek that CLEARS her is odd but defensible as distrust of Rosa. INES TOP SUSPECT: fabricated peek-on-Greta, blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov, phantom disclosure; commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates STILL unanswered. SAID ALOUD (no repeats): liar-trio w/ Ines top; asymmetric peeks; Greta R5 arithmetic clears her vs Ines claim; pressed Rosa on peek timing; endorsed Nadia zero-pile clock / pre-pass 2-card announces; answered Marek re my R1 hand (discarded F, passed two Libs). THIS WINDOW NEW: conceded Rosa's peek-publish point IF transcript backs it; NEW ask -> Rosa: reconstruct your R3 presidential hand (3 drawn, which discarded, what passed to Nadia); NEW ask -> Nadia: answer Marek's standing question -- if F#3 fires under this desk, whose name gets the presidency? Answer BEFORE the vote, not after. NOTE: Nadia/Rosa is the R3 F-producing pair reversed; voting them back makes the next F under them near-dispositive. DEADLINES: (a) Greta commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates. (b) Ines withdraw blanket-Ja + commit-Nein (Otto). (d) Nadia pre-name prez pick if F#3 fires. (e) RESOLVED-ish pending transcript check. (f) Nadia R3 retroactive accounting (Pavel). WATCH: Rosa t=21 live-announce pledge; Marek forfeited R5 vote minor flag. NEXT: listen for Rosa R3-hand answer + Nadia prez-pick answer; speak only on fresh evasion.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa(P)/Nadia(C)->F + F#1 peek fired under Rosa's govt. R4 Ines/Greta->F (my Nein). R5 Greta/Tomas->Lib; tracker 0. CROSS-CHECK LIVE: Nadia t=127 published R3 receipt = F-F off Rosa's claimed F-F-L draw, L burned. I asked Rosa (this window) to confirm card-for-card. MATCH=both desks corroborate; DEVIATION=convicts one of Rosa/Nadia. Rosa t=60: claims she published R3 peek same round naming GRETA LIBERAL aloud, Greta disavowed. Peek question resolved-ish; HAND question outstanding -> Rosa owes card-for-card R3 draw/burn/pass. INES TOP SUSPECT: fabricated Greta-Fascist peek, blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov, phantom 'on record' disclosure; STILL no commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates (Otto's deadline d). GRETA: clean-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match. SAID ALOUD (no repeats): liar-trio w/ Ines top; asymmetric peeks; Greta R5 arithmetic clears her; pressed Rosa peek timing; endorsed pre-pass announces; answered Marek re my R1 hand (drew ?, discarded F, passed two Libs); conceded Rosa peek-publish IF transcript backs it; asked Rosa reconstruct R3 hand; asked Nadia prez-pick -> ANSWERED t=79: picks ME if F#3 fires. DEADLINES OPEN: (a) Greta commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates. (b) Ines withdraw blanket-Ja / commit-Nein (Otto). (f) Nadia R3 retroactive accounting timing (Pavel) -- partially covered by t=127 confession. WATCH: Rosa t=21 pledge announce both cards+burn before enacting; Marek R5 forfeit minor flag; Nadia picked me as next-P -- if F#3 fires under this slate and I get presidency, demand full disclosure from me too (consistent standard). NEXT: listen for Rosa R3-hand confirmation vs Nadia's version; speak only on fresh evasion or mismatch.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa(P)/Nadia(C)->F + F#1 peek fired under Rosa's govt. R4 Ines/Greta->F (my Nein). R5 Greta/Tomas->Lib; tracker 0. Board: L3/F2, veto off. CROSS-CHECK LIVE: Nadia t=127 published R3 receipt = F-F off Rosa's claimed F-F-L draw, L burned. I asked Rosa card-for-card confirm (t=3 this window, message cut mid-word). MATCH=both desks corroborate; DEVIATION=convicts one of Rosa/Nadia. STILL OUTSTANDING -> Rosa owes it. Otto t=245: demands Rosa announce BOTH received cards + intended burn before enacting -- good, endorse if needed but don't repeat verbatim. Nadia t=246: commits prez-pick = ME if F#3 fires under this slate. If that happens, demand full disclosure from me too (consistent standard). INES TOP SUSPECT: fabricated Greta-Fascist peek, blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-gov, phantom 'on record' disclosure; still no commit-Nein-on-Greta/Ines-slates. GRETA: clean-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match. SAID ALOUD (no repeats): liar-trio w/ Ines top; asymmetric peeks; Greta R5 arithmetic clears her; endorsed pre-pass announces; answered Marek re my R1 hand (drew ?, discarded F, passed two Libs); conceded Rosa peek-publish IF transcript backs it; pressed Rosa R3 hand card-for-card; asked Nadia prez-pick -> ANSWERED (me). DEADLINES OPEN: (a) Greta commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates. (b) Ines withdraw blanket-Ja / commit-Nein (Otto's deadline). (c) Rosa R3 hand confirm vs Nadia's version. NEXT: wait for Rosa's card-for-card answer; speak only on fresh evasion or mismatch with Nadia's F-F receipt.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R1 me/Rosa->Lib. R2 Lena/Marek->Lib. R3 Rosa(P)/Nadia(C)->F + F#1 peek fired. R4 Ines/Greta->F (my Nein). R5 Greta/Tomas->Lib. Board: L3/F2, veto off. RESOLVED THIS WINDOW: Rosa confirmed R3 hand card-for-card = matches Nadia's published F-F receipt (L burned). Cross-check CLOSED. Note: F-F-L draw forces a Fascist enactment from ANY chancellor -- so R3 convicts nobody by itself; stop leaning on it. MY PUBLISHED R1 HAND (restate if pressed): drew 3, discarded 1 Fascist, passed Lib-Lib to Rosa -> Liberal enacted. Consistent with outcome. INES TOP SUSPECT: fabricated Greta-Fascist peek, blanket-Ja-any-Rosa-govt, phantom 'on record' disclosure, no commit-Nein-on-Greta/Ines slates. Otto's deadline on her still open. GRETA: cleared-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match; STILL OWES commit-Nein-on-Ines-slates (deadline open). NADIA: committed prez-pick = me if F#3 fires under this slate. Fine; I'll publish full desk if it happens. SAID ALOUD (don't repeat): liar-trio w/ Ines top; asymmetric peeks; endorsed pre-pass announces; conceded Rosa peek-publish IF transcript backs it. NEXT: watch whether Ines finally commits Nein; press Greta's Nein commitment if floor allows later; stay silent unless fresh evasion.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. Board R6: L3/F2, tracker 0/3, veto off. Slate Nadia(P)/Rosa(C) -- VOTED JA. RESOLVED: Rosa confirmed R3 hand = matches Nadia receipt (F-F-L draw, Lib burned). NOTE: no-veto F-F-L forces Fascist enactment from anyone -- R3 convicts nobody by itself. ROSA'S PEEK: named Greta LIBERAL (published R3); conflicts w/ Ines's Greta-FASCIST peek. Conduct favors Rosa: Greta burned own F ammo in R5 at 2F enacted. Ines top suspect: fabricated peek, phantom 'on record', blanket-Ja-Rosa-govts, never committed Nein-on-Greta slates. Otto deadline on Ines still open. GRETA: cleared-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match; still owes commit-Nein-on-Ines slates. MY PUBLISHED R1 HAND (restate if pressed): drew 3, burned 1 Fascist, passed Lib-Lib -> Lib enacted. Consistent w/ outcome. Marek called it last unpublished desk -- answered by consistency. NADIA: committed prospective prez-pick = ME if F#3 fires this slate. If it happens: publish full desk immediately, use investigation power publicly. SAID ALOUD (don't repeat): liar-trio w/ Ines top; asymmetric peeks; endorsed pre-pass announces; pressed Rosa's peek publish (answered); cross-check closed t=102. NEXT: if Rosa announces pair pre-enact, verify vs deck odds; press Greta's Nein commitment when floor allows; watch whether Ines ever commits.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. Board post-R6: L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF (unlocks at 5F). Slate Nadia(P)/Rosa(C) enacted LIB -> consistent w/ both their records. STAKES: one more Lib = win. Next F enactment = 3F -> Hitler-chancellor risk goes LIVE. Everyone should pre-commit NOW: name your Nein conditions for next slate. OPEN ASKS (no answer yet): - GRETA: owes commit-Nein-on-Ines slates (asked earlier, unanswered). - INES: never committed any Nein condition ever; also top suspect via fabricated Greta-FASCIST peek conflicting Rosa's published Greta-LIB peek (R3), phantom 'on record' claims, blanket-Ja on all Rosa govts. RESOLVED: Rosa R3 hand cross-check closed t=102 (matches Nadia receipt). No-veto F-F-L forces F enactment from anyone -- R3 convicts nobody alone. GRETA cleared-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match; conduct favors Rosa over Ines on peek conflict. MY PUBLISHED R1 HAND: drew 3, burned 1 F, passed Lib-Lib. Consistent. NADIA: committed prez-pick = ME if F#3 fires. If it does: publish full desk immediately. SAID ALOUD (don't repeat): liar-trio w/ Ines top; asymmetric peeks; pre-pass announce endorsement; Rosa peek publish press; deck-odds verification plan. NEXT: verify any pre-announced pair vs deck odds (9 draw / 2 discard); watch whether Ines or Greta ever commits Nein.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. Board post-R6: L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF (5F). Slate Nadia(P)/Rosa(C) enacted LIB -> both records still mixed-but-alive. STAKES: one more Lib = WIN. Next F = 3F -> Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. Pre-commitments are the only currency left post-reshuffle (card claims R1-R5 now unverifiable). MY COMMITMENT (publish): Nein on any slate containing INES until she answers R3 peek conflict (her fabricated 'Greta-FASCIST' vs Rosa's published Greta-LIB) AND states an actual Nein condition -- she has never committed one. Otherwise Ja on clean slates; want the win. OPEN ASKS: GRETA owes commit-Nein-on-Ines slates (asked earlier, silent). OTTO: presumptive next prez -- demanded he announce exact draw+burn before passing (Greta asked too; watch if he complies). NADIA: pledged t=72 to announce draw/burn, did NOT this round (Greta's charge stands); also committed prez-pick=ME if F#3 fires -- hold her to both. RESOLVED: Rosa R3 hand cross-check closed (matches Nadia receipt). No-veto F-F-L forces F enactment -- R3 convicts nobody alone. GRETA cleared-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top; then watch Nadia's announce-failure pattern vs her R3 F enactment. SAID ALOUD (don't repeat): liar-trio w/ Ines top; asymmetric peeks; pre-pass announce endorsement; Rosa peek publish press; deck-odds verification plan. NEXT: verify any pre-announced pair vs deck odds (9 draw / 2 discard); check Otto's compliance with announce-before-pass; whether Ines or Greta ever commits Nein.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. Post-R6: L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF (5F). Nadia/Rosa enacted LIB -> both still mixed-but-alive. STAKES: 1 more Lib = WIN. Next F = 3F -> Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. Pre-commitments only currency left post-reshuffle. MY COMMITMENT (published): Nein on any slate containing INES until she answers R3 peek conflict (her 'Greta-FASCIST' vs Rosa's published Greta-LIB) AND states a real Nein condition. Else Ja clean slates. THIS WINDOW SAID: pressed Nadia to answer Lena's charge (pledged t=72 announce-draw/burn, then passed in silence) + reaffirm prez-pick=ME if F#3 fires; re-asked Greta for Nein-commit on Ines slates (2nd ask); endorsed Otto's pledge + demanded he name succession pick BEFORE vote like we forced Nadia. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: NADIA - explain announce failure (Lena charged, she silent). GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit (silent twice). OTTO - succession pick named pre-vote? INES - R3 peek contradiction, never answered. RESOLVED: Rosa R3 hand cross-check closed vs Nadia receipt. No-veto F-F-L forces F -> R3 convicts nobody alone. GRETA cleared-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top; then Nadia (announce-failure pattern + R3 F enactment under her desk). NEXT ROUND: Otto presumptive P (seat 6). Verify any announced pair vs deck odds (9 draw/2 discard). Check Otto complies. Watch whether Ines/Greta ever commit Nein. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio w/ Ines top; asymmetric peeks; deck-odds plan; Rosa peek-publish press.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. Post-R6: L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. Nadia/Rosa enacted LIB -> both mixed-alive. STAKES: 1 more Lib = WIN. Next F = 3F -> Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. Pre-commitments only currency left. MY COMMITMENT (published): Nein on any slate containing INES until she resolves R3 peek conflict (her Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa's published Greta-LIB) AND states real Nein condition. Else Ja clean slates. THIS WINDOW: published my own R1 hand (L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L to Rosa) to close Marek's asymmetry attack; redirected at Ines's unanswered peek contradiction. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: NADIA - explain t=72 announce-pledge failure (she silent, Lena+Greta charged). GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit (silent twice). OTTO - succession pick named pre-vote? (Rosa t=41 + Pavel t=48 asking). INES - R3 peek contradiction, never answered (now 4 windows). RESOLVED: all desks published hands (Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta/Tomas/me). Rosa-Nadia R3 cross-check closed. Greta cleared-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match. No-veto F-F-L forces F -> nobody convicted alone. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (peek contradiction + R4 exit-timing); Nadia second (announce-failure pattern, R3 F under her desk). NEXT ROUND: Otto presumptive P. Verify he announces draw+burn before passing (pledged t=29). Demand his succession pick pre-vote like we forced Nadia's. Watch whether Ines/Greta ever commit Nein. Deck: 9 draw/2 discard. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio w/ Ines top; asymmetric peeks; deck-odds; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure (already voiced).

ROLE: Boris, liberal. Post-R6: L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. Nadia/Rosa enacted LIB -> both mixed-alive. STAKES: 1 more Lib = WIN. Next F = 3F -> Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. Pre-commitments only currency left. MY COMMITMENT (published): Nein on any slate containing INES until she resolves R3 peek conflict (her Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa's published Greta-LIB) AND states real Nein condition. Else Ja clean slates. THIS WINDOW: pressed OTTO pre-vote: announce full 3-card draw + burn before passing, AND name succession pick before the vote (echoing Rosa t=41 / Pavel t=48). Framed as win-round: clean Otto govt + announced cards = likely game win, so no room for silent hands. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: NADIA - explain t=72 announce-pledge failure (silent). GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit (silent twice). INES - R3 peek contradiction, never answered (4+ windows). RESOLVED: all desks published hands incl. mine (R1: L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L to Rosa). Rosa-Nadia R3 cross-check closed. Greta cleared-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match. No-veto F-F-L forces F -> nobody convicted alone. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (peek contradiction + R4 exit-timing); Nadia second (announce-failure pattern, R3 F under her desk); Otto unproven -- test via pre-commitments. NEXT ROUND: Otto presumptive P. Verify he honors announce pledge live; check his named pick matches what he said pre-vote. Watch whether Ines/Greta ever commit Nein. Deck: 9 draw/2 discard after R6. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio w/ Ines top; asymmetric peeks; deck-odds; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; my own R1 hand (already voiced t=2).

ROLE: Boris, liberal. Post-R6: L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. Nadia/Rosa enacted LIB -> both mixed-alive. STAKES: 1 more Lib = WIN. Next F = 3F -> Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. Pre-commitments only currency left. MY COMMITMENT (published): Nein on any slate containing INES until she resolves R3 peek conflict (her Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa's published Greta-LIB) AND states real Nein condition. Else Ja clean slates. THIS WINDOW: answered PAVEL's asymmetry charge: my R1 hand (L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L to Rosa) was voiced at t=2 of R1's own window -- BEFORE any reshuffle/burying; deadline standard applies prospectively to live checkable desks, not dead rounds. Pivoted to open debts: INES R3 contradiction (5th ask), GRETA Nein-on-Ines (3rd ask). OPEN ASKS OWED ME: NADIA - explain t=72 announce-pledge failure (silent). GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit (silent twice). INES - R3 peek contradiction, never answered (5 windows now). RESOLVED: all desks published hands incl. mine. Rosa-Nadia R3 cross-check closed. Greta cleared-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match. No-veto F-F-L forces F -> nobody convicted alone. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (peek contradiction + R4 exit-timing); Nadia second (announce-failure pattern, R3 F under her desk); Otto unproven -- test via pre-commitments. NEXT ROUND: Otto presumptive P. Verify he honors announce pledge live; check his named pick matches pre-vote statement. Watch whether Ines/Greta ever commit Nein. Deck: 9 draw/2 discard after R6. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio w/ Ines top; asymmetric peeks; deck-odds; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; my R1 hand specifics (voiced t=2 + this defense).

ROLE: Boris, liberal. Post-R6: L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. 1 more Lib = WIN; next F = 3F -> Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. DECK MATH: post-reshuffle 9 draw/2 discard; remaining cards 2L/9F -> draws heavily F-weighted; pre-commitments are the only currency. MY COMMITMENT (published): Nein on any slate containing INES until she resolves R3 peek conflict (her Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa's published Greta-LIB) AND states real Nein condition. THIS WINDOW: pressed OTTO on unanswered succession pick (Rosa t=41, Pavel t=48 ignored); added criterion: post-hoc pick = unfalsifiable; R3/R4-cluster pick = my Nein. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: NADIA - explain t=72 announce-pledge failure (silent). GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit (silent x2). INES - R3 peek contradiction (silent x5). RESOLVED: my R1 hand (L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L to Rosa) published t=53 -- closes Marek's objection to Nadia's succession pick of me. All desks' hands published. Rosa-Nadia R3 cross-check closed. Greta cleared-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (peek contradiction + R4 exit-timing); Nadia second (announce-failure pattern + R3 F under her desk); Otto unproven -- test via succession pick + live announce pledge compliance. NEXT ROUND: Otto presumptive P. VERIFY: (1) he announces draw/burn BEFORE passing; (2) his succession pick matches any pre-vote statement; (3) nominee source. Watch Ines/Greta for any Nein-commit ever. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio w/ Ines top; asymmetric peeks; deck-odds aloud; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; my R1 hand specifics.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. Post-R6: L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. 1 more Lib = WIN; next F = 3F -> Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. DECK MATH: 9 draw/2 discard post-reshuffle -> remaining ~2L/9F, draws F-weighted; pre-commitments only currency. MY COMMITMENT (published): Nein on any slate containing INES until she resolves R3 peek conflict (Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa's published Greta-LIB) AND states real Nein condition. THIS WINDOW: t=3 pressed OTTO on unanswered succession pick (Rosa t=41, Pavel t=48 ignored); criterion added: post-hoc pick unfalsifiable; R3/R4-cluster pick = my Nein. Otto/Marek now pressing Pavel to pledge -- their lane, staying out. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: NADIA - explain t=72 announce-pledge failure (silent). GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit (silent x2). INES - R3 peek contradiction (silent x5). RESOLVED: my R1 hand (L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L to Rosa) published t=53 -- closes Marek's objection re Nadia picking me. All desks' hands published. Rosa-Nadia R3 cross-check closed. Greta cleared-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (R3 peek contradiction + R4 exit-timing); Nadia second (announce-failure pattern + R3 F under her desk); Otto unproven -- test via succession pick + live announce compliance. NEXT ROUND: Otto presumptive P. VERIFY: (1) announces draw/burn BEFORE passing; (2) succession pick matches any pre-vote statement; (3) nominee source. Watch Ines/Greta for any Nein-commit ever. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio w/ Ines top; asymmetric peeks; deck-odds aloud; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; my R1 hand specifics.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. Post-R6: L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. ONE more Lib = WIN; next F = 3F -> Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. DECK MATH: ~2L/9F remaining, F-weighted draws; pre-commitments are the only currency. MY COMMITMENT (published): Nein on any slate containing INES until she resolves R3 peek conflict (Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa published Greta-LIB) AND states real Nein condition. THIS WINDOW: said - one-Lib-from-win framing: no reason to gamble on unvetted slates; renewed Nein-on-Ines; named Ines/Greta/Nadia triple-silence as data; asked NADIA directly re R6 announce compliance. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: NADIA - t=72 announce-pledge failure + R6 announce compliance (silent). GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit (silent x2). INES - R3 peek contradiction (silent x5). RESOLVED: all desks' hands published; my R1 hand (L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L to Rosa) closed Marek objection; Rosa-Nadia R3 cross-check closed; Greta cleared-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (R3 peek contradiction + R4 exit-timing); Nadia second (announce-failure pattern + R3 F under her desk); Otto unproven - test via succession pick + live announce compliance. Pavel: Marek/Lena pressing him to pledge -- their lane, staying out. NEXT ROUND: Otto presumptive P. VERIFY: (1) announces draw/burn BEFORE passing; (2) succession pick matches any pre-vote statement (post-hoc pick unfalsifiable; R3/R4-cluster pick = my Nein); (3) nominee source. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio w/ Ines top detail; asymmetric peeks; deck-odds aloud; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; my R1 hand specifics; Lena/Marek's Pavel/Otto presses.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. Post-R6: L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. ONE more Lib = WIN; next F = 3F -> Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. DECK MATH: ~2L/9F remaining, F-weighted draws; pre-commitments are the only currency. MY COMMITMENT (published): Nein on any slate containing INES until she resolves R3 peek conflict (Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa published Greta-LIB) AND states real Nein condition. THIS WINDOW: said - one-Lib-from-win framing; renewed Nein-on-Ines; named Ines/Greta/Nadia triple-silence as data; asked NADIA directly re R6 announce compliance. NEW t=271+: Otto said 'my Fascist-three succession pick is Tomas' -- AMBIGUOUS/POSSIBLY CHECKABLE LIE: only 2 F enacted, F3 succession NOT reachable, so he cannot have already made a pick. Pressed via interrupt: conditional pre-commit vs claiming used power. If he claims used power -> fabricated mechanical fact, call hard. If conditional -> acceptable, but pin pick publicly so post-hoc change = damning. Note: Tomas pick itself is low-suspicion (R5 Greta/Tomas enacted Lib). OPEN ASKS OWED ME: NADIA - t=72 announce-pledge failure + R6 announce compliance (silent). GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit (silent x2). INES - R3 peek contradiction (silent x5). OTTO - succession-pick clarification (just asked). RESOLVED: all desks' hands published; my R1 hand (L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L to Rosa) closed Marek objection; Rosa-Nadia R3 cross-check closed; Greta cleared-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (R3 peek contradiction + R4 exit-timing); Nadia second (announce-failure pattern + R3 F under her desk); Otto unproven - test via succession pick + live announce compliance. Pavel: Marek/Lena pressing him to pledge -- their lane, staying out. NEXT ROUND: Otto presumptive P (seat order). VERIFY: (1) announces draw/burn BEFORE passing; (2) succession pick matches t=271 statement 'Tomas' verbatim; (3) nominee source. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio w/ Ines top detail; asymmetric peeks; deck-odds aloud; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; my R1 hand specifics; Lena/Marek's Pavel/Otto presses.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. Post-R6: L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. ONE more Lib = WIN; next F = 3F -> Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. DECK MATH: ~2L/9F remaining, F-weighted draws; pre-commitments are the only currency. MY COMMITMENTS (published): Nein on any slate containing INES until she resolves R3 peek conflict (Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa published Greta-LIB) AND states real Nein condition. NEW: Nein on any Otto slate unless he (a) announces draw+burn BEFORE passing, (b) names succession pick = 'Tomas' verbatim if F3 fires. OTTO THREAD: t=271 he said 'my Fascist-three succession pick is Tomas' -- ambiguous vs checkable lie (only 2F enacted; F3 NOT reachable, cannot have picked yet). Pressed via interrupt: used-power claim = fabricated mechanical fact, call hard. Conditional pre-commit = acceptable, but pick now pinned publicly -> post-hoc change damning. If he dodges Tomas demand from t=272 too, that stacks. THIS WINDOW SAID: one-Lib-from-win framing; renewed Nein-on-Ines; Ines/Greta/Nadia triple-silence; direct Q to Nadia re announce compliance. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: NADIA - t=72 announce pledge + R6 compliance (silent). GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit (silent x2). INES - R3 peek contradiction (silent x5). OTTO - succession clarification (asked twice now). RESOLVED: all desks published hands; my R1 hand closed Marek objection; Rosa-Nadia R3 cross-check closed; Greta cleared-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (R3 contradiction + R4 exit timing); Nadia second (announce-failure pattern); Otto unproven - test via succession pick; Pavel: Lena/Marek's lane, staying out. NEXT ROUND: Otto presumptive P. VERIFY: announce-before-pass; succession pick verbatim 'Tomas'; nominee source. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio detail; asymmetric peeks; deck odds aloud; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; R1 hand specifics; Pavel/Otto presses.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R7 pre-nomination. L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. ONE more Lib = WIN; next F = 3F -> Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. DECK MATH: ~2L/9F left, F-weighted draws; pre-commitments are the only currency. MY PUBLISHED COMMITMENTS: Nein on any slate containing INES until she resolves R3 peek conflict (Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa published Greta-LIB) AND states real Nein condition. Nein on any Otto slate unless he (a) announces draw+burn BEFORE passing, (b) names succession pick 'Tomas' verbatim if F3 fires. OTTO THREAD: t=271 he said F3 succession pick = Tomas -- ambiguous vs checkable lie (2F enacted; F3 NOT reachable). Pressed twice. This window: final consolidated demand before nomination -- nominee source + announce-before-pass + Tomas verbatim. Pick pinned publicly -> post-hoc change damning. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: NADIA - t=72 announce pledge + R6 compliance (silent). GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit (silent x2). INES - R3 peek contradiction (silent x5). OTTO - succession clarification (asked 2x, pressing again now). RESOLVED: all desks published hands; R1 hand closed Marek objection; Rosa-Nadia R3 cross-check closed; Greta cleared-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (R3 contradiction + R4 exit timing); Nadia second (announce-failure pattern); Otto unproven - test via succession pick; Pavel: Lena/Marek lane, staying out. R7 VERIFY once nominated: announce-before-pass compliance; succession pick verbatim 'Tomas'; nominee source. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio detail; asymmetric peeks; deck odds aloud; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; R1 hand specifics; Pavel/Otto presses.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R7 pre-nomination. L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. ONE more Lib = WIN; next F = 3F -> Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. DECK MATH: ~2L/9F left, F-weighted draws; pre-commitments only currency. MY PUBLISHED COMMITMENTS: Nein any slate w/ INES until she resolves R3 peek conflict (Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa published Greta-LIB) + states real Nein condition. Nein any Otto slate unless (a) announces draw+burn BEFORE passing, (b) names succession pick 'Tomas' verbatim if F3 fires. THIS WINDOW (done): pressed Otto final time - pin nominee source + succession 'Tomas' verbatim BEFORE nominating; told Pavel his pledge accepted but untested desk, watch Lena/Marek lane. Pavel: volunteered announce-pair-and-burn pledge unprompted (t=1-3), never held office. Not suspect yet; if nominated, verify compliance live. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: NADIA - t=72 announce pledge + R6 compliance (silent). GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit (silent x2). INES - R3 peek contradiction (silent x5). OTTO - succession clarification (asked 3x now). RESOLVED: all desks published hands; Rosa-Nadia R3 cross-check closed; Greta cleared-ish via R5 arithmetic + Tomas L-L match; Marek R1 objection closed. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (R3 contradiction + R4 exit timing); Nadia 2nd (announce-failure pattern); Otto unproven - test via succession pick; Pavel neutral-watch. R7 VERIFY once nominated: announce-before-pass compliance; 'Tomas' verbatim if F3 fires; nominee source. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio detail; asymmetric peeks; deck odds aloud; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; R1 hand specifics; Pavel/Otto presses beyond this one.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R7 open floor, Otto presiding. L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. Next Lib = WIN; next F = Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. DECK MATH: ~2L/9F left, F-weighted draws; pre-commitments only currency. MY COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: Nein any INES slate until R3 peek conflict resolved (Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa's published Greta-LIB) + real Nein condition stated. Nein any OTTO slate unless draw+burn announced BEFORE passing AND succession 'Tomas' verbatim if F3 fires (he said Tomas t=131, unjustified). THIS WINDOW: demanded Otto justify-or-swap Tomas pick + name chancellor live pre-vote. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: NADIA - t=72 announce pledge + R6 compliance (silent). GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit (silent x2). INES - R3 peek contradiction (silent x5). OTTO - Tomas justification (asked now, also by Tomas/Marek). RESOLVED: all desks published; Rosa-Nadia R3 cross-check closed; Greta cleared via R5 arithmetic; Marek R1 objection closed; Otto succession named (unjustified). SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (R3 contradiction + R4 exit timing); Nadia 2nd (announce-failure pattern); Otto unproven - test via Tomas justification + nominee source; Pavel neutral-watch (pledged unprompted, never held office - verify compliance live if nominated). R7 VERIFY once nominated: announce-before-pass compliance; 'Tomas' verbatim if F3 fires; nominee source. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio detail; asymmetric peeks; deck odds aloud; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; R1 hand specifics; Pavel/Otto presses beyond this window.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R7 open floor. L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. Next Lib = WIN; next F = Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. DECK MATH: ~2L/9F left, F-weighted draws; pre-commitments only currency. MY COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: Nein any INES slate until R3 peek conflict resolved (Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa's published Greta-LIB) + real Nein condition stated. Nein any OTTO slate unless draw+burn announced BEFORE passing AND succession 'Tomas' verbatim if F3 fires (he said Tomas t=131, unjustified). THIS WINDOW: t=3 demanded Otto justify-or-swap Tomas + name chancellor live pre-vote. Marek (t=2) pressing same. Nadia (t=1) asked Rosa confirm R6 receipt L-F/F - not mine to answer. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: NADIA - announce pledge + R6 compliance (silent). GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit (silent x2). INES - R3 peek contradiction (silent x5). OTTO - Tomas justification + chancellor name (asked t=3, pending). RESOLVED: all desks published; Rosa-Nadia R3 cross-check closed; Greta cleared via R5 arithmetic; Marek R1 objection closed. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (R3 contradiction + R4 exit timing); Nadia 2nd (announce-failure pattern); Otto unproven - test via Tomas justification + nominee source; Pavel neutral-watch (pledged unprompted, never held office). R7 VERIFY once nominated: announce-before-pass compliance; 'Tomas' verbatim if F3 fires; nominee source. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio detail; asymmetric peeks; deck odds aloud; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; R1 hand specifics; Pavel/Otto presses beyond this window.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R7 open floor. L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. Next Lib = WIN; next F = Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. DECK MATH: ~2L/9F left, F-weighted draws; pre-commitments only currency. MY COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: Nein any INES slate until R3 peek conflict resolved (Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa's published Greta-LIB) + real Nein condition stated. Nein any OTTO slate unless draw+burn announced BEFORE passing AND succession 'Tomas' verbatim if F3 fires (he said Tomas t=131, unjustified). THIS WINDOW: t=3 demanded Otto justify-or-swap Tomas + name chancellor live pre-vote. Marek (t=2) pressing same. Nadia (t=1) asked Rosa confirm R6 receipt L-F/F - not mine to answer. NOTHING NEW since t=3 -> stayed silent this turn; no repeat of Otto press. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: NADIA - announce pledge + R6 compliance (silent). GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit (silent x2). INES - R3 peek contradiction (silent x5). OTTO - Tomas justification + chancellor name (asked t=3, pending). RESOLVED: all desks published; Rosa-Nadia R3 cross-check closed; Greta cleared via R5 arithmetic; Marek R1 objection closed. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (R3 contradiction + R4 exit timing); Nadia 2nd (announce-failure pattern); Otto unproven - test via Tomas justification + nominee source; Pavel neutral-watch (pledged unprompted, never held office). R7 VERIFY once nominated: announce-before-pass compliance; 'Tomas' verbatim if F3 fires; nominee source. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio detail; asymmetric peeks; deck odds aloud; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; R1 hand specifics; Pavel/Otto presses beyond this window.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R7 window ongoing. L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. Next Lib = WIN; next F = Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. DECK MATH: ~2L/9F left, F-weighted; pre-commitments only currency. MY COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: Nein any INES slate until R3 peek conflict resolved (Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa's published Greta-LIB) + real Nein condition stated. Nein any OTTO slate unless draw+burn announced BEFORE passing AND succession 'Tomas' verbatim if F3 fires (he said Tomas t=131, unjustified). THIS WINDOW: t=3 demanded Otto justify-or-swap Tomas + name chancellor live pre-vote. Marek pressing same. Nadia pressing Pavel on R3 corroboration + R6 receipt. No asks aimed at me -> silent again; no repeats of Otto press or liar-trio detail. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: NADIA - announce pledge + R6 compliance (silent). GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit (silent x2). INES - R3 peek contradiction (silent x5). OTTO - Tomas justification + chancellor name (t=3, pending). RESOLVED: all desks published; Rosa-Nadia R3 cross-check closed; Greta cleared via R5 arithmetic; Marek R1 objection closed. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (R3 contradiction + R4 exit timing); Nadia 2nd (announce-failure pattern); Otto unproven - test via Tomas justification + nominee source; Pavel neutral-watch (pledged unprompted, never held office). R7 VERIFY once nominated: announce-before-pass compliance; 'Tomas' verbatim if F3 fires; nominee source. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio detail; asymmetric peeks; deck odds aloud; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; R1 hand specifics; Pavel/Otto presses beyond this window.

ROLE: Boris, liberal. R7 window ongoing. L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. Next Lib = WIN; next F = Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. DECK MATH: ~2L/9F left, F-weighted; pre-commitments only currency. MY COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: Nein any INES slate until R3 peek conflict resolved (Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa's published Greta-LIB) + real Nein condition stated. Nein any OTTO slate unless draw+burn announced BEFORE passing AND succession 'Tomas' verbatim if F3 fires (he said Tomas t=131, unjustified). THIS WINDOW: t=3 Lena demanded Pavel commit pre-vote: mixed pair -> burn F, enact Lib. Marek pressing Otto same as me. Nadia pressing Pavel R3 corroboration + R6 receipt. Rosa card-confirmed R6 desk. No asks aimed at me -> silent x3; no repeats of Otto press or liar-trio detail. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: NADIA - announce pledge + R6 compliance (silent). GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit (silent x2). INES - R3 peek contradiction (silent x5). OTTO - Tomas justification + chancellor name (t=3, pending). RESOLVED: all desks published; Rosa-Nadia R3 cross-check closed; Greta cleared via R5 arithmetic; Marek R1 objection closed; Pavel credited R3 receipt via Nadia/Rosa match. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (R3 contradiction + R4 exit timing); Nadia 2nd (announce-failure pattern); Otto unproven - test via Tomas justification + nominee source; Pavel neutral-watch (pledged unprompted, never held office; watch if he honors Lena's mixed-pair commitment). R7 VERIFY once nominated: announce-before-pass compliance; 'Tomas' verbatim if F3 fires; nominee source; Pavel's burn discipline. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio detail; asymmetric peeks; deck odds aloud; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; R1 hand specifics; Pavel/Otto presses beyond this window.

ROLE: Boris liberal. R7 debate, L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. Next Lib=WIN; next F=Hitler-chancellor risk LIVE. DECK: ~2L/9F left, F-weighted; pre-vote commitments only currency. THIS WINDOW t1-3: Otto pressed Pavel yes/no + called out Ines silence. Ines replied re R4 audit closed, did NOT touch R3 peek conflict = dodge. Lena demanded Pavel commit mixed-pair burn-F. Marek pressing Otto same as me. No asks aimed at me. MY SPEECH NOW: named Otto's two open debts (Tomas-succession justification, nominee source) + stated my Nein conditions on his slate verbatim (draw+burn announced BEFORE passing; 'Tomas' verbatim if F3 fires); named Ines's t=2 as answering the wrong question - R3 Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa's published Greta-LIB still unresolved, restated my standing Nein on any Ines slate. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: OTTO - Tomas justification + nominee source (now public x1). NADIA - announce pledge + R6 compliance. GRETA - Nein-on-Ines commit. INES - R3 peek contradiction (silent x5, dodged again t=2). COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: Nein any INES slate until R3 conflict resolved. Nein any OTTO slate unless pre-announced draw/burn + Tomas verbatim. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (R3 contradiction + R4 exit timing + dodge pattern); Nadia 2nd (announce-failure); Otto unproven - test via Tomas; Pavel neutral-watch (pledged unprompted; watch honoring Lena's mixed-pair pledge if elected). R7 VERIFY IF ELECTED: announce-before-pass compliance; Tomas verbatim if F3 fires; nominee source; Pavel burn discipline. DON'T REPEAT: liar-trio detail; deck odds aloud; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; R1 hand specifics; asymmetric peeks; this Otto/Ines press.

ROLE: Boris liberal. R7 debate, L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. Next Lib=WINS game; next F puts Hitler-trigger live via Otto's pre-named successor. DECK: ~2L/9F remaining, F-weighted -- mixed pair likely; Pavel burn-F discipline matters. THIS WINDOW: Otto nominated Pavel (discharged Marek's condition); Pavel yes + signed pledge t=6; Marek Ja owed+locked; Greta Ja. Rosa confirmed Nadia R6 receipt card-for-card (F-L-F, burned F, passed L-F; Rosa burned F, enacted L). Ines t=52 answered only R4 audit, again dodged R3 peek conflict (Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa published Greta-LIB). NEW GAP FOUND: Tomas silent all window on Otto's succession pick despite Marek t=144 accept/refuse ask -- I pressed him this turn. MY SPEECH THIS WINDOW: t=39 pressed Otto re Tomas justification + nominee source; NOW pressed Tomas to accept/sign publicly. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: OTTO - never justified Tomas pick (mooted by Pavel nomination but pattern noted). INES - R3 peek contradiction (silent x5+, dodged again). COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: Nein any INES slate until R3 conflict resolved. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (R3 contradiction + dodge pattern); Nadia 2nd (pledged announce R6, never announced between vote close and enactment); Otto unproven; Pavel neutral-watch (verify he honors pledge + burns F on mixed pair if elected). R7 VERIFY IF PASSED: Pavel announces both received cards + intended burn BEFORE enacting; burns F on mixed pair; if F3 fires, Tomas succession honored verbatim. DON'T REPEAT: Otto/Ines press detail; deck odds aloud; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; R1 hand specifics.

ROLE: Boris liberal. R7 debate, L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. Next Lib=WINS game; next F puts Hitler-trigger live via Otto's pre-named successor Tomas. DECK: ~2L/9F remaining, F-weighted -- mixed pair likely; Pavel burn-F discipline decisive. THIS WINDOW: Pavel t=3 gave direct unhedged YES to announce-pair-and-burn standard. That was my last open condition on this slate -> I am Ja, contingent on live compliance. MY SPEECH THIS WINDOW: acknowledged Pavel's pledge, declared conditional Ja, restated the tripwire: if F3 fires under Pavel and Tomas takes presidency unsigned/unannounced, treat Pavel+Tomas as the fascist pair. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: INES - R3 peek contradiction (Greta-FASCIST vs Rosa published Greta-LIB), silent 5+ times, dodged again at t=52. OTTO - Tomas pick justification (mooted by Pavel nomination). COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: Nein any INES slate until R3 conflict resolved. Ja on p6/p7 contingent on Pavel honoring pledge live. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (R3 contradiction + dodge pattern); Nadia 2nd (pledged announce R6, never announced between vote close and enactment); Otto unproven; Pavel neutral-watch. R7 VERIFY IF PASSED: Pavel announces both received cards + intended burn BEFORE enacting; burns F on mixed pair; if F3 fires, Tomas succession honored verbatim or flagged. DON'T REPEAT: Otto/Ines press detail; deck odds aloud; Rosa peek press; Nadia announce-failure detail; R1 hand specifics.

ROLE: Boris liberal. R7 debate, L4/F2, tracker 0/3, veto OFF. Next Lib=WINS game; next F puts Hitler-trigger live via Otto's pre-named successor Tomas. DECK: ~2L/9F remaining, F-weighted -- mixed pair likely; Pavel burn-F discipline decisive. THIS WINDOW: Pavel gave direct unhedged YES to announce-pair-and-burn standard -> my open condition met -> Ja, contingent on live compliance. NEW THIS WINDOW: Tomas t=3 independently flagged the SAME R3/R4 conflict I named earlier (Rosa's peek clearing Greta LIB vs Ines implying Greta Fascist off her R4 desk). Two players now on record -> pressure on Ines is doubled. I spoke once already: noted corroboration, third direct ask to Ines to reconcile or accept silence-as-answer. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: INES - R3 peek contradiction, silent through three asks + Tomas's flag. OTTO - Tomas pick justification (mooted by Pavel nomination). COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: Nein any INES slate until R3 conflict resolved. Ja on p6/p7 contingent on Pavel honoring pledge live. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines top (contradiction + dodge pattern); Nadia 2nd (pledged announce R6, never announced between close and enactment); Otto unproven; Pavel neutral-watch; Tomas watch (raised valid point but still Otto's named successor -- his flag could be liberal-honest OR manufactured split; no verdict yet). R7 VERIFY IF PASSED: Pavel announces both received cards + intended burn BEFORE enacting; burns F on mixed pair; if F3 fires, Tomas succession honored verbatim or flagged. DON'T REPEAT: Otto/Ines press detail; deck odds aloud; Rosa peek mechanics; Nadia announce-failure detail; R1 hand specifics.

ROLE: Boris liberal. Voted JA on p6/p7 R7. L4/F2, tracker was 0/3 pre-vote; next Lib=WINS game; next F puts Hitler-trigger live via Otto's pre-named successor Tomas. DECK: ~2L/9F remaining, F-weighted -- mixed pair likely; Pavel pledged burn-F discipline live at t=83. WHY JA: Pavel signed announce-pair-and-burn unprompted t=6, answered Nadia's R3 credit ask t=31, unhedged mixed-pair yes t=83. Nein risked auto-policy from F-heavy deck. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines TOP (Rosa's R3 peek cleared Greta LIBERAL vs Ines implying Greta Fascist off R4 desk -- contradiction flagged by me AND independently by Tomas t=104; silent through three direct asks). Nadia 2nd (pledged announce R6 cards, nothing announced between vote close and enactment -- Greta/Lena both flagged). Otto unproven (Tomas succession pick still zero stated evidence -- his only answer was 'timing'). Pavel neutral-watch now in office. Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas no verdict; Tomas's flag could be honest or manufactured split. VERIFY IF PASSED: Pavel announces BOTH received cards + intended burn BEFORE enacting; burns F on mixed pair; if F3 fires, Tomas succession honored verbatim or publicly flagged. OPEN ASKS OWED ME: INES -- reconcile R3 peek vs R4 implication or accept silence-as-answer. OTTO -- evidence behind Tomas pick (mooted by Pavel nomination but pattern noted). COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: Nein any INES slate until conflict resolved. Ja contingent on Pavel honoring pledge live. DON'T REPEAT: Otto/Ines press detail; deck odds aloud; Rosa peek mechanics; Nadia announce-failure detail; R1 hand specifics.

ROLE: Boris liberal. Voted JA p6/p7 R7. Now L4/F3 -- HITLER-TRIGGER LIVE: any Chancellor election that seats Hitler ends the game for fascists. Next Liberal policy WINS us the game. R7 RESULT: Otto/Pavel govt enacted F3 -> power 3 fired, Otto named TOMAS successor President. Pavel survived as Chancellor => Pavel is NOT Hitler (vote passed). DECK MATH: 17-card deck, 7 enacted (4L/3F) => 10 unseen = 6L/4F split across draw(6)/discard(4). Draw pile range 0L-6F; not knowable, stop quoting odds. LIVE ASKS: 1. PAVEL -- pledged t=83 announce-pair-and-burn BEFORE enacting. Policy went through. Demand verbatim: both received cards + discarded card + whether burn was forced or chosen. If he drew 2L and still enacted F, he is a top suspect. If he drew mixed/F-heavy, Ja vote vindicated. 2. OTTO -- Tomas succession pick still zero stated evidence beyond 'timing'. Ask once more, short: name the reason or retract. 3. INES -- still silent through three direct asks on R3 peek vs R4 implication contradiction (Greta cleared LIBERAL implies Greta Fascist off R4 desk -- impossible). Silence-as-answer stands; committed Nein on any Ines slate until resolved. SUSPECT ORDER: Ines TOP, Nadia 2nd (pledged announce R6 cards, never announced -- flagged by Greta+Lena), Otto unproven, Pavel neutral-watch pending his announcement NOW, Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas no verdict. Tomas's anti-Ines flag could be honest or manufactured split. NEXT GOVT WATCH: Tomas presiding soon -- if he nominates Ines, treat as red flag; if he pursues Ines line consistently, credibility up. COMMITMENTS: Nein any Ines slate. Ja contingent on pledges honored live. DON'T REPEAT: Otto/Ines press detail verbatim; Rosa peek mechanics; Nadia announce-failure detail; R1 hand specifics; deck odds aloud.

ROLE: Boris liberal. Voted JA p6/p7 R7. L4/F3 -- HITLER-TRIGGER LIVE: seating Hitler as Chancellor ends game for fascists; NEXT LIBERAL POLICY WINS US THE GAME. Next F policy fires EXECUTION power (4); F6 = fascist win. Veto still locked (fires at 5F). R7 RESULT: Otto/Pavel govt enacted F3 -> Otto named TOMAS successor President. Pavel survived chancellorship => NOT Hitler. PAVEL: pledged t=83 announce pair + burn BEFORE enacting; policy enacted with no announcement. Demanded verbatim hand (both cards + discard + forced vs chosen). If he drew any Liberal and still played F => top suspect. Lena now pressing same -- let her run it, add weight only. OTTO: Tomas succession has zero stated reason. Asked twice; asked once more short: name reason or retract. INES: silent through three direct asks re R3 peek vs R4 contradiction (Greta cleared LIBERAL implies Greta Fascist off R4 desk -- impossible). Silence = answer. Committed Nein any Ines slate. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP, Nadia 2nd (pledged announce R6 cards, never did), Otto unproven, Pavel pending announcement NOW, Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas no verdict. Tomas anti-Ines flag = honest or manufactured split. NEXT GOVT WATCH: Tomas presiding soon -- nominating Ines = red flag; consistent Ines pursuit = credibility up. COMMITMENTS: Nein any Ines slate. Ja contingent on pledges honored live. DON'T REPEAT: Otto/Ines press detail; Rosa peek mechanics; Nadia announce failure; R1 hand specifics; deck odds aloud.

ROLE: Boris liberal. Voted JA p6/p7 R7. L4/F3 -- HITLER-TRIGGER LIVE: seating Hitler as Chancellor ends game for fascists; NEXT LIBERAL POLICY WINS US THE GAME. Next F policy fires EXECUTION power (4); F6 = fascist win. Veto still locked (fires at 5F). R7 RESULT: Otto/Pavel govt enacted F3 -> Otto named TOMAS successor President. Pavel survived chancellorship => NOT Hitler. PAVEL CLAIM t=1: says Otto handed him F-F, no Liberal in hand => enactment arithmetically forced. NOTE: only Pavel knows the pair; only OTTO knows the 3-card draw + his burn. Pavel's story is UNFALSIFIABLE from outside unless Otto confirms the draw/burn. Demand: Otto state verbatim his 3 cards and which he burned. If Otto had a Liberal and still passed F-F => BOTH guilty. If forced, Pavel exonerated-ish and suspicion shifts to deck luck/Otto's draw honesty. Do NOT let Pavel's confident specificity stand as proof -- weigh against Otto's answer. OTTO: Tomas succession has zero stated reason. Asked twice + once short: name reason or retract. NOW owes hand disclosure too. INES: silent through three direct asks re R3 peek vs R4 contradiction (Greta cleared LIBERAL implies Greta Fascist off R4 desk -- impossible). Silence = answer. Committed Nein any Ines slate. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP, Nadia 2nd (pledged announce R6 cards, never did), Otto pending hand answer, Pavel contingent on Otto's confirmation, Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas no verdict. Tomas anti-Ines flag = honest or manufactured split. NEXT GOVT WATCH: Tomas presiding soon -- nominating Ines = red flag; consistent Ines pursuit = credibility up. COMMITMENTS: Nein any Ines slate. Ja contingent on pledges honored live. DON'T REPEAT: Otto/Ines press detail; Rosa peek mechanics; Nadia announce failure; R1 hand specifics; deck odds aloud.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL POLICY WINS GAME. Next F policy fires EXECUTION power; F6 = fascist win. Veto locked until 5F. KEY CORRECTION (new, say aloud): Pavel is NOT cleared by surviving his chancellorship -- he was elected when only 2F were on board; the 3rd F landed during his own government. Hitler-trigger checks at ELECTION time, so Pavel can still be Hitler. Do not let anyone 'clear' him on survival arithmetic. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims pre-passed F-F-F, Pavel claims forced F-F pair. Only Pavel knows pair; only Otto knows draw+burn. Otto says 'both desks cleared by arithmetic' -- FALSE framing: even if forced, Otto chose Pavel nomination AND named Tomas successor President with zero stated reason. Pressed 3x on Tomas reason, unanswered. DEMANDS OPEN: (1) Otto verbatim 3-card draw + which burned; (2) Tomas-succession justification or retract; (3) Ines silent 3 asks re R3 peek vs R4 Greta contradiction -> committed Nein any Ines slate; (4) Nadia pledged announce R6 cards, never did. INES: TOP suspect. Nadia 2nd. Otto pending hand answer. Pavel NOT exonerated (see correction) -- contingent on Otto's disclosure matching. Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas no verdict. Tomas anti-Ines flag = honest or manufactured split; watch his presidency picks. COMMITMENTS: Nein any Ines slate. Ja contingent on pledges honored live. DON'T REPEAT: Otto/Ines press detail verbatim; Nadia announce failure; R1 hand specifics; deck odds aloud.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F policy = execution power; F6 = fascist win. Veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER CORRECTION (private): Pavel elected at 2F -> survival does NOT clear him as Hitler; trigger checks at ELECTION time. Any future Pavel chancellorship at 3F = instant fascist loss for libs. Keep Pavel off all slates. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims pre-passed F-F-F + burned one; Pavel claims forced F-F pair. NEW PUBLIC POINT MADE: Otto's claimed live announcement absent from transcript between vote close & enactment — fabricated mechanical fact, pressed him for verbatim draw+burn. OPEN DEMANDS: (1) Otto exact 3 cards + which burned; (2) Tomas-succession justification or retract (asked 3x by me/Others, zero answer); (3) Ines silent on R4 peek vs Rosa's R3 'Greta LIBERAL' contradiction -> committed Nein any Ines slate; (4) Nadia pledged announce R6 cards, never did. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (silent through 3 asks, R4 gov produced F2). Otto pending hand disclosure + Tomas pick w/o evidence. Nadia 2nd (announce breach, late F-F confession). Pavel NOT exonerated (see correction). No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. Tomas anti-Ines flag = honest or manufactured split; watch his picks. COMMITMENTS: Nein any Ines slate. Ja contingent on pledges honored LIVE (announce pair+burn before enacting). DON'T REPEAT: Otto/Ines press detail verbatim; Nadia announce failure; R1 hand specifics; deck odds aloud; Nadia's co-governor point (hers).

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F policy = execution power; F6 = fascist win. Veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER CORRECTION (private): Pavel elected at 2F -> survival does NOT clear him as Hitler; trigger checks at ELECTION time. Any future Pavel chancellorship at 3F = instant fascist loss for libs. Keep Pavel off all slates. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims pre-passed F-F-F + burned one; Pavel claims forced F-F pair. NEW PUBLIC POINT MADE: Pavel's 'no choice' defense DEPENDS ENTIRELY on Otto's hand claim -- if Otto actually held F-F-F, Pavel was forced; if Otto lied (he already fabricated the pre-announcement), Pavel may have held L-F and chosen F. Their stories vouch for each other and Otto's half is caught fabricated -> treat BOTH as unconfirmed. OPEN DEMANDS: (1) Otto exact 3 cards + which burned, verbatim NOW; (2) Tomas-succession justification or retract (asked 3x, zero answer); (3) Ines silent on R4 peek vs Rosa's R3 'Greta LIBERAL' contradiction -> committed Nein any Ines slate; (4) Nadia pledged announce R6 cards, never did. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP. Otto pending hand disclosure + Tomas pick w/o evidence. Nadia 2nd (announce breach, late F-F confession). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein any Ines slate. Ja contingent on pledges honored LIVE (announce pair+burn before enacting). DON'T REPEAT: transcript-absence of Otto's pre-declaration (Boris t=2, Greta t=3, Marek t=4 all covered); Nadia's co-governor point (hers); Nadia announce failure detail; R1 hand specifics; deck odds aloud.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL POLICY WINS GAME FOR US. Next F policy = execution; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER (private): Pavel survived election at 2F -> does NOT clear him; trigger checks at ELECTION time. Any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims pre-passed F-F-F + burn; announcement proven ABSENT from transcript (Boris/Greta/Marek all confirmed). Pavel claims forced F-F pair. Their stories vouch for each other -> BOTH unconfirmed. F3 fired Otto's succession pick - Marek demanding he name it; pick is public record, use it as evidence (fascists don't hand pen to liberals while ahead). SAFEST CHANCELLOR POOL (my proposal, made this turn): Lena / Marek / Tomas - each one term, each delivered a Liberal. Mixed records: Rosa (L,F,L), Greta (F,L), Nadia (F,L). Worst: Ines (only F), Otto/Pavel (current F). OPEN DEMANDS: (1) Otto: succession pick OUT LOUD + verbatim 3 cards + burn; (2) Pavel: one-word yes/no - does he vouch for Otto's F-F-F claim? yes = chained to caught liar, no = forced-story dead; (3) Tomas-succession justification or retract (asked 3x, no answer); (4) Ines silent on R4 peek vs Rosa's R3 'Greta LIBERAL' contradiction; (5) Nadia pledged announce R6 cards, never did. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP. Otto pending disclosure. Nadia 2nd (announce breach). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja contingent on pledges honored LIVE (announce pair+burn before enacting). Push slate from {Lena,Marek,Tomas}. DON'T REPEAT: transcript-absence of Otto's pre-declaration (covered 3x); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto point (Greta said it); Nadia co-governor point (hers); R1 hand specifics; deck odds aloud.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME FOR US. Next F = execution; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims pre-passed F-F-F + burn; announcement proven ABSENT (Boris/Greta/Marek). Pavel claims forced F-F pair. Stories vouch each other -> BOTH unconfirmed. ASKED THIS TURN: Pavel yes/no -- does his defense rest on Otto's F-F-F claim? (vouch=chained to caught liar; refuse=forced-story dead). SUCCESSION: F3 fired Otto's pick-power; Otto pre-named Tomas (no evidence given, 3 asks unanswered). Watch if he keeps or swaps the name -- swap = theater proof. Fascists at 3F don't hand gavel to liberals while ahead. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL (my proposal): Lena/Marek/Tomas (each delivered a Liberal). Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only F), Otto/Pavel(current F). OPEN DEMANDS: (1) Otto: verbatim 3 cards + burn + succession pick OUT LOUD; (2) Tomas-succession justification or retract; (3) Ines silent on R4 peek vs Rosa's R3 'Greta LIBERAL' contradiction (Greta pressed t=112, Ines unanswered); (4) Nadia pledged announce R6 cards, never did; (5) Otto owes explanation for fabricated F-F-F declaration (Boris/Greta/Marek all flagged). SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (only F desk + silence). Otto (fabricated announcement). Nadia 2nd (announce breach R6). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE announce-pair+burn pledges honored. DON'T REPEAT: transcript-absence of Otto's pre-declaration (3x said); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto point (Greta made); Nadia co-governor mutual-vouch point (hers); R1 hand specifics; deck odds.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME FOR US. Next F = execution; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims pre-passed F-F-F + burn; announcement ABSENT (Boris/Greta/Marek flagged). Pavel claims forced F-F. Stories vouch each other -> both unconfirmed. MY OPEN Q TO PAVEL (t=2, UNANSWERED): does his defense rest on Otto's F-F-F claim, yes/no? SUCCESSION: F3 fired Otto's pick-power. Otto pre-named Tomas, no evidence, 3 asks unanswered. Nadia t=3: successor must have signed announce-pair-and-burn standard; Tomas refused twice. MY NEW DEMAND: Otto states verbatim 3 cards + burn + successor name + justification BEFORE power fires. If he swaps off Tomas under pressure -> theater proof. Watch. TOMAS ASK: if named, accept gavel? Pledge announce-pair-and-burn LIVE or refuse. Silence/refusal = info. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL (my proposal): Lena/Marek/Tomas (each delivered a Liberal). Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only F), Otto/Pavel(current F). OPEN DEMANDS: (1) Otto verbatim cards+burn+succession pick OUT LOUD; (2) Tomas accept/pledge answer; (3) Ines silent on R4 peek vs Rosa's R3 'Greta LIBERAL' contradiction (Greta pressed t=112, unanswered); (4) Nadia pledged announce R6 cards, never did; (5) Pavel owes me yes/no on vouching Otto's F-F-F. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (only F desk + silence). Otto (fabricated announcement). Nadia 2nd (announce breach R6). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE announce-pair+burn pledges honored. DON'T REPEAT: transcript-absence of Otto's declaration (3x said); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto (Greta made); Nadia co-governor mutual-vouch (hers); R1 hand specifics; deck odds.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME FOR LIBERALS. Next F = execution power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims pre-passed FFF+burn; announcement ABSENT (I/Greta/Marek caught it, appeared t=19 post-charge). Pavel claims received F-F, forced enact (veto locked) — answered my t=81 Q at t=95: denies leaning on Otto's draw. Still unverifiable, published only after Lena's charge. SUCCESSION: F3 fired Otto's pick-power. Otto pre-named Tomas, justification only at t=74 (R5 clean desk), NEVER re-named pick after power fired. Marek t=61 demand unanswered. Nadia t=88: successor must be announce-standard signatory; Tomas refused twice. MY LIVE ASK THIS WINDOW: Otto names pick verbatim NOW; Tomas accept-or-pledge. TOMAS: refuse/silence on accept+pledge = info. If accepts, demand live announce-pair-and-burn. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas (delivered Liberals). Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only F desk), Otto/Pavel(current F). OPEN DEMANDS: (1) Otto verbatim cards+burn+succession pick OUT LOUD [partially: justification given, pick not re-stated]; (2) Tomas accept/pledge; (3) Ines silent on R4 peek vs Rosa's R3 'Greta LIBERAL' contradiction (Greta pressed t=112, unanswered); (4) Nadia pledged announce R6 cards, never did; (5) DONE: Pavel answered vouch question t=95. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (only F desk R3-Ines/Greta-R4 + silence). Otto (fabricated announcement, current F desk). Nadia 2nd (announce breach R6, co-governor vouch pattern). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE announce-pair+burn pledges honored. DON'T REPEAT: transcript-absence of Otto's declaration (3x said); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto (Greta made); Nadia mutual-vouch (hers); R1 hand specifics; deck odds.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME FOR LIBERALS. Next F = execution power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims pre-passed FFF+burn; announcement ABSENT (caught by me/Greta/Marek t=19). Pavel claims received F-F, forced enact (veto locked) — answered my Q t=95, denies leaning on Otto's draw. Unverifiable, published post-charge. Still blacklisted. SUCCESSION RESOLVED-ish: Tomas accepted spot + SIGNED announce-pair-and-burn standard (t=3). Otto pre-named him, justification t=74 (R5 clean desk). HOLD TOMAS TO LIVE ANNOUNCE when his presidency comes. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas (delivered Liberals). Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only F desk), Otto/Pavel(current F). OPEN DEMANDS: (1) Ines silent on R4 peek vs Rosa's R3 'Greta LIBERAL' claim — Greta pressed t=112, STILL UNANSWERED; (2) Nadia pledged announce R6 cards, never did; (3) DONE: Pavel answered vouch question t=95; Tomas accept/pledge done t=3. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (only-F desk R3-Ines/Greta-R4 + silence under direct press). Otto (fabricated announcement, current F desk). Nadia 2nd (announce breach R6, co-governor vouch pattern). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE announce-pair+burn pledges honored. NEW ANGLE THIS TURN: game-point framing — next Liberal ends it, so every Ja must be earned by a live pledge; also re-press Ines directly myself since Greta's t=112 went unanswered. DON'T REPEAT: transcript-absence of Otto's declaration (3x said); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto (Greta made); Nadia mutual-vouch (hers); R1 hand specifics; deck odds.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME FOR LIBERALS. Next F = execution power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims pre-passed FFF+burn; announcement ABSENT (caught by me/Greta/Marek t=19). Pavel claims received F-F, forced enact (veto locked) — answered my Q t=95, denies leaning on Otto's draw. Unverifiable, published post-charge. Still blacklisted. SUCCESSION RESOLVED-ish: Tomas accepted spot + SIGNED announce-pair-and-burn standard (t=3). Otto pre-named him, justification t=74 (R5 clean desk). HOLD TOMAS TO LIVE ANNOUNCE when his presidency comes. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas (delivered Liberals). Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only F desk), Otto/Pavel(current F). OPEN DEMANDS: (1) Ines silent on R4 peek vs Rosa's R3 'Greta LIBERAL' claim — Greta pressed t=112 unanswered; I re-pressed her MYSELF this turn — STILL OWES ANSWER; (2) Nadia pledged announce R6 cards, never did. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (only-F desk R3-Ines/Greta-R4 + silence under direct press). Otto (fabricated announcement, current F desk). Nadia 2nd (announce breach R6). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE announce-pair+burn pledges honored. GAME-POINT FRAME MADE THIS TURN: next Liberal ends it, every Ja must be earned by live pledge. DON'T REPEAT: transcript-absence of Otto's declaration (3x said); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto (Greta made); Nadia mutual-vouch (hers); R1 hand specifics; deck odds.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME FOR LIBERALS. Next F = execution power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims pre-passed FFF+burn; announcement ABSENT (caught by me/Greta/Marek t=19). Pavel claims received F-F forced enact (veto locked) — denies leaning on Otto's draw. Unverifiable, published post-charge. Still blacklisted. NEW THIS TURN: F3 fired = SPECIAL ELECTION LIVE. Otto picks next President. DEMANDED he announce pick + reason BEFORE acting (t=now). Anyone ACCEPTING Otto's nod inherits his suspicion — refuse or explain on record. Watch for Otto naming a fellow suspect (Ines/Nadia/Pavel) = confirmation. SUCCESSION RESOLVED-ish: Tomas accepted spot + SIGNED announce-pair-and-burn standard (t=3); Otto pre-named him t=74 citing R5 clean desk. HOLD TOMAS TO LIVE ANNOUNCE when presidency comes. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas (delivered Liberals). Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel(current F). OPEN DEMANDS: (1) Ines owes answer on R4 peek vs Rosa's R3 'Greta LIBERAL' claim — Greta pressed t=112, I re-pressed — STILL UNANSWERED; (2) Nadia pledged announce R6 cards, never did. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (only-F desk + silence under direct press). Otto (fabricated announcement, current F desk). Nadia 2nd (announce breach R6). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE announce-pair+burn pledges honored. GAME-POINT FRAME MADE: next Liberal ends it, every Ja earned by live pledge. DON'T REPEAT: transcript-absence of Otto's declaration (3x said); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto (Greta made); Nadia mutual-vouch (hers); R1 hand specifics; deck odds.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME FOR LIBERALS. Next F = execution power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims pre-passed FFF+burn; announcement ABSENT (caught by me/Greta/Marek t=19). Otto doubled down t=138 'three Fascists full stop' — still no transcript evidence. Pavel claims received F-F forced enact, denies leaning on Otto. Unverifiable, published post-charge. Still blacklisted. NEW STATE: F3 fired = SPECIAL ELECTION LIVE. Otto picks next President. MY DEMAND OUT (this window): confirm Tomas or justify swap — deviation from vetted pick after F3 = evidence. Tomas accepted + signed announce-pair-and-burn (t=109/116); HOLD HIM to live publish when presidency lands. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas (delivered Liberals). Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel(current F). OPEN DEMANDS: (1) Ines owes answer on R4 peek vs Rosa's R3 'Greta LIBERAL' claim — Greta pressed t=112, STILL UNANSWERED, Ines only deflected via proxy-argument t=52/60; (2) Nadia pledged announce R6 cards, never did (Greta/Lena caught breach); (3) Otto owes succession pick out loud. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (only-F desk + dodge under direct press). Otto (fabricated announcement, current F desk). Nadia 2nd (announce breach). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE announce-pair+burn pledges honored. GAME-POINT FRAME MADE: next Liberal ends it, every Ja earned by live pledge. DON'T REPEAT: transcript-absence of Otto's declaration (said 3x); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto (Greta made); Nadia mutual-vouch (hers); R1 hand specifics; deck odds.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME FOR LIBERALS. Next F = execution power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims pre-passed FFF+burn; announcement ABSENT (caught by me/Greta/Marek t=19). Otto doubled down t=138 'three Fascists full stop' — no evidence. Pavel claims received F-F forced enact. Unverifiable. Blacklisted. SPECIAL ELECTION LIVE: Otto owes succession pick out loud. Pressed by me x3 + Nadia t=320 + Pavel t=321 — STILL NO NAME. Tomas accepted + signed announce-pair-and-burn live (t=109/116). If Otto names anyone but Tomas = swap-after-F3 evidence, said on record t=322. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas (delivered Liberals). Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel(current F). OPEN DEMANDS: (1) Ines owes answer on R4 peek vs Rosa's R3 'Greta LIBERAL' claim — Greta pressed t=112, UNANSWERED, only proxy-deflection t=52/60; (2) Nadia pledged announce R6 cards, never did (Greta/Lena caught breach); (3) Otto succession pick — overdue. WHEN PICK LANDS: demand named successor pledge announce-pair-and-burn live BEFORE any Ja; hold Tomas to it if he inherits. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (only-F desk + dodge under press). Otto (fabricated announcement, current F desk). Nadia 2nd (announce breach). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE announce-pair+burn pledges honored. GAME-POINT FRAME MADE: next Liberal ends it, every Ja earned by live pledge. DON'T REPEAT: transcript-absence of Otto's declaration (said 3x); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto (Greta made); Nadia mutual-vouch (hers); R1 hand specifics; deck odds; swap-after-F3 point (just said t=322).

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = execution power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF draw + burn; announcement ABSENT (caught by me/Greta/Marek t=19); doubled down t=138. Pavel claims forced FF enact. Unverifiable. Both blacklisted. SPECIAL ELECTION LIVE: Otto owes succession pick out loud. Pressed x3 by me + Nadia t=320 + Pavel t=321 -- STILL NO NAME. Tomas accepted + signed announce-pair-and-burn pledge live (t=109/116). Otto attached same condition to Tomas t=1. If Otto names anyone but Tomas = swap-after-F3 evidence, said t=322. NEW POINT MADE THIS WINDOW: Greta's 'zero Fascists left' lie-detector is OFF BY ONE. Public record: 7 enacted + 4 discarded + 6 pile = 17 cards = standard 11L/6F. Six F total; consumed: R3(1)+R4(1)+R7(3)=5. Exactly ONE F still unaccounted. Single F under Tomas does NOT break Otto's story. Tripwire = TWO F surfacing before game end. Said out loud -- hold Greta to corrected test. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas. Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel. OPEN DEMANDS: (1) Otto succession pick overdue; (2) Ines owes answer on R4 peek vs Rosa's R3 'Greta LIBERAL' claim (Greta pressed t=112, unanswered); (3) Nadia pledged announce R6 cards, never did. WHEN PICK LANDS: demand named successor pledge announce-pair-and-burn live BEFORE any Ja; hold Tomas to it if he inherits. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (only-F desk + dodge). Otto (fabricated announcement, current F desk). Nadia 2nd (announce breach). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE announce-pair+burn pledges honored. GAME-POINT FRAME MADE: next Liberal ends it, every Ja earned by live pledge. DON'T REPEAT: transcript-absence of Otto declaration (said 3x); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto; Nadia mutual-vouch; R1 hand specifics; deck odds; swap-after-F3 point; card-count correction (just said).

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = execution power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF draw + burn; announcement ABSENT (caught by me/Greta/Marek t=19); doubled down t=138. Pavel claims forced FF enact. Unverifiable. Both blacklisted. SPECIAL ELECTION RESOLVED: Tomas is President -- Otto named him, consistent with swap-after-F3 tripwire (said t=322). Tripwire NOT tripped. CARD-COUNT CORRECT MADE: Greta's 'zero Fascists left' off by one -- 17 cards = 11L/6F; consumed 5F (R3,R4,R7x3); exactly ONE F unaccounted. Single F under Tomas doesn't break Otto's story. Tripwire = TWO more F surfacing. Greta owes acknowledgment of corrected test. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas. Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel. NEW DEMAND NOW: Tomas must nominate Lena or Marek (not himself, not Pavel/Otto/Ines) AND both pledge announce-pair-and-burn LIVE before my Ja. Hold him to it. STILL OPEN: (1) Ines owes answer R4 peek vs Rosa's R3 'Greta LIBERAL' claim (Greta pressed t=112, unanswered); (2) Nadia pledged announce R6 cards, never did. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (only-F desk + dodge). Otto (fabricated announcement). Nadia 2nd (announce breach). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE announce-pair+burn pledges honored. GAME-POINT FRAME MADE: next Liberal ends it, every Ja earned by live pledge. DON'T REPEAT: transcript-absence of Otto declaration (3x); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto; Nadia mutual-vouch; R1 hand specifics; deck odds; swap-after-F3 point; card-count math (just said).

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = execution power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF draw + burn; announcement ABSENT (caught by me/Greta/Marek); doubled down t=138. Pavel claims forced FF enact. Both blacklisted. SPECIAL ELECTION RESOLVED: Tomas President via Otto naming him -- consistent with swap-after-F3 tripwire (said t=322). Tripwire NOT tripped. CARD-COUNT CORRECTED: 17 cards = 11L/6F; consumed 5F; exactly ONE F unaccounted. Single F under Tomas doesn't break Otto's story. Tripwire = TWO more F surfacing. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas. Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel. INES CONTRADICTION NOW LIVE: Marek+Nadia pressing her -- R4 peek 'Greta FASCIST' vs Rosa R3 claim 'Greta LIBERAL'; one of them invented. Nadia adds timing evidence: answer appeared only after Tomas exposed gap; silent when Greta asked directly. If Ines fabricated, she's fascist-tier suspect #1. Still no answer from Ines. DEMAND TO TOMAS (said): nominate Lena or Marek (not self/Pavel/Otto/Ines) AND both pledge announce-pair-and-burn LIVE before my Ja. STILL OPEN: Nadia pledged announce R6 cards, never did. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP. Otto (fabricated announcement). Nadia 2nd (announce breach). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE announce-pair+burn pledges honored. GAME-POINT FRAME MADE: next Liberal ends it, every Ja earned by live pledge. DON'T REPEAT: transcript-absence of Otto declaration (3x); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto; Nadia mutual-vouch; R1 hand specifics; deck odds; swap-after-F3; card-count math.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = execution power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF draw + burn; announcement ABSENT (caught by me/Greta/Marek); doubled down. Pavel claims forced FF enact. Both blacklisted. SPECIAL ELECTION RESOLVED: Tomas President via Otto naming him -- consistent with swap-after-F3 tripwire (said). Tripwire NOT tripped. CARD-COUNT CORRECTED: 17 cards = 11L/6F; consumed 5F; exactly ONE F unaccounted. Single F under Tomas doesn't break Otto's story. Tripwire = TWO more F surfacing. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas. Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel. INES CONTRADICTION NOW PUBLIC FROM ROSA HERSELF (t=1 this window): Rosa R3 peek on Greta = LIBERAL; Ines R4 peek on Greta = FASCIST. Cards don't change hands -> one of them invented it. Ines answered by attacking Otto's FFF math instead of addressing it -- second consecutive dodge after Marek+Nadia pressed. Timing evidence (Nadia): her 'Greta FASCIST' surfaced only after Tomas cornered her, silent when Greta asked directly. If Ines fabricated, fascist-tier suspect #1. DEMAND TO TOMAS (restated): nominate Lena or Marek (not self/Pavel/Otto/Ines); both pledge announce-pair-and-burn LIVE before my Ja. STILL OPEN: Nadia pledged announce R6 cards, never did. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (dodge + timing). Otto (fabricated announcement). Nadia 2nd (announce breach). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE announce-pair+burn pledges honored. GAME-POINT FRAME MADE: next Liberal ends it, every Ja earned by live pledge. DON'T REPEAT: transcript-absence of Otto declaration (3x); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto; card-count math details; deck odds; swap-after-F3 mechanics.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = execution power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF draw + burn; announcement ABSENT (caught by me/Greta/Marek); doubled down at t=138. Pavel claims forced FF enact. Both blacklisted. SPECIAL ELECTION RESOLVED: Tomas President via Otto naming him pre-fire; accepted + signed standard at t=109/116. CARD-COUNT: 17 cards = 11L/6F; consumed 5F; exactly ONE F unaccounted. Single F under Tomas doesn't break Otto's story. Tripwire = TWO more F surfacing under Tomas. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas. Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel. INES CONTRADICTION PUBLIC: Rosa R3 peek Greta=LIBERAL vs Ines R4 peek Greta=FASCIST; one fabricated. Ines answered only after cornered (silent when Greta asked direct in vote window); then attacked Otto's FFF math instead of addressing it. If fabricated -> deflection framing now made by me publicly. DEMAND TO TOMAS (made again this turn): nominate Lena or Marek, live announce-pair+burn pledge before my Ja; anyone else = Nein. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (dodge + timing + possible self-cover). Otto (fabricated announcement). Pavel NOT exonerated. Nadia minor (old announce breach, resolved by Rosa confirmation). No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE honored pledges. GAME-POINT FRAME MADE: next Liberal ends game; every Ja earned by live pledge. DON'T REPEAT: transcript-absence of Otto declaration (3x); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto; card-count math details; deck odds; swap-after-F3 mechanics; Rosa-vs-Ines contradiction basics (others covering).

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = execution power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF draw + burn; announcement ABSENT (caught by me/Greta/Marek); doubled down at t=138. Pavel claims forced FF enact. Both blacklisted. SPECIAL ELECTION RESOLVED: Tomas President via Otto naming him pre-fire; accepted + signed standard at t=109/116. CARD-COUNT: 17 cards = 11L/6F; consumed 5F; exactly ONE F unaccounted. Single F under Tomas doesn't break Otto's story. Tripwire = TWO more F surfacing under Tomas. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas. Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel. INES CONTRADICTION PUBLIC: Rosa R3 peek Greta=LIBERAL vs Ines R4 peek Greta=FASCIST; one fabricated. Ines answered only after cornered (silent when Greta asked direct in vote window); then attacked Otto's FFF math instead of addressing it. If fabricated -> deflection framing made by me publicly. CURRENT GOVERNMENT: Tomas/Lena = both in my safe pool. DEMAND NOW TO LENA (this turn): live announce-pair+burn pledge before my Ja. Same demand stands for Tomas as President. No pledge = Nein. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (dodge + timing + possible self-cover). Otto (fabricated announcement). Pavel NOT exonerated. Nadia minor (old announce breach, resolved by Rosa confirmation). No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE honored pledges. GAME-POINT FRAME MADE: next Liberal ends game; every Ja earned by live pledge. DON'T REPEAT: transcript-absence of Otto declaration (3x); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto; card-count math details; deck odds; swap-after-F3 mechanics; Rosa-vs-Ines contradiction basics (others covering).

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = execution power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF draw + burn; announcement ABSENT (caught by me/Greta/Marek); doubled down t=138. Pavel claims forced FF enact. Both blacklisted. TOMAS SPECIAL ELECTION: resolved, signed standard t=109/116. CARD-COUNT: 17 cards = 11L/6F; consumed 5F; exactly ONE F unaccounted. Single F under Tomas doesn't break Otto's story. Tripwire = TWO more F under Tomas. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas. Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel. INES CONTRADICTION PUBLIC: Rosa R3 peek Greta=LIBERAL vs Ines R4 peek Greta=FASCIST; one fabricated. Ines answered only after cornered; attacked Otto's math instead of addressing it. THIS TURN (t~340): spoke -- pressed Lena for live yes/no on mixed-pair burn pledge before my Ja; noted Pavel's Nein is self-serving (failed vote resets term limits = fascist stall; and Pavel can never hold chancellorship at 3F+). Nadia/Rosa also pressing Lena same beat. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP. Otto (fabricated announcement). Pavel NOT exonerated. Nadia minor. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE honored pledges. GAME-POINT FRAME MADE: next Liberal ends game; every Ja earned by live pledge. DON'T REPEAT: Otto transcript-absence (3x); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto; card-count details; deck odds; swap-after-F3 mechanics; Rosa-vs-Ines basics.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = execution power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF draw + burn; announcement ABSENT (caught by me/Greta/Marek); doubled down t=138. Pavel claims forced FF enact. Both blacklisted. TOMAS SPECIAL ELECTION: resolved, signed standard t=109/116. Nominated Lena R8. CARD-COUNT: 17 cards = 11L/6F; consumed 5F; exactly ONE F unaccounted. Single F under Tomas doesn't break Otto's story. Tripwire = TWO more F under Tomas. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas. Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel. INES CONTRADICTION PUBLIC: Rosa R3 peek Greta=LIBERAL vs Ines R4 peek Greta=FASCIST; one fabricated. Ines answered only after cornered; attacked Otto's math instead of addressing it. THIS WINDOW SO FAR: pressed Lena for live yes/no on mixed-pair burn pledge before my Ja; flagged Pavel's Nein self-serving (failed vote resets term limits = fascist stall; Pavel can never hold chancellorship at 3F+). Nadia/Rosa also pressing Lena same beats. NEW THIS BEAT: demanded Ines declare vote now; joint Ines+Pavel Nein on game-winner = bloc signal. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP. Otto (fabricated announcement). Pavel NOT exonerated. Nadia minor. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE honored pledges. GAME-POINT FRAME MADE: next Liberal ends game; every Ja earned by live pledge. OWED TO ME: Lena still owes live mixed-pair commitment (Nadia t=8, Rosa t=15, me). DON'T REPEAT: Otto transcript-absence (3x); Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto; card-count details; deck odds; swap-after-F3 mechanics; Rosa-vs-Ines basics; Pavel-Nein-stall point.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = execution power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF draw + burn; announcement ABSENT (caught by me/Greta/Marek); doubled down t=138. Pavel claims forced FF enact. Both blacklisted. TOMAS SPECIAL ELECTION: resolved, signed standard t=109/116. Nominated Lena R8. CARD-COUNT: 17 cards = 11L/6F; consumed 5F; exactly ONE F unaccounted. Single F under Tomas doesn't break Otto's story. Tripwire = TWO more F under Tomas. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas. Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel. INES CONTRADICTION PUBLIC: Rosa R3 peek Greta=LIBERAL vs Ines R4 peek Greta=FASCIST; one fabricated. Ines answered only after cornered. THIS WINDOW: pressed Lena for live yes/no mixed-pair burn pledge before my Ja; flagged Pavel's Nein self-serving (reset restores him+Otto); demanded Ines declare vote now; joint Ines+Pavel Nein = bloc signal. Marek t=3 independently hit Pavel's reset-benefit angle. NEW THIS BEAT: asked Tomas LIVE PRE-COMMITMENT: next F gives HIM execution power -- name now who he executes / pledge honest draw announcement before ballot closes. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP. Otto (fabricated announcement). Pavel NOT exonerated. Nadia minor. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE honored pledges. OWED TO ME: Lena live mixed-pair commitment (Nadia t=8, Rosa t=15, me). Tomas execution pledge. DON'T REPEAT: Otto transcript-absence; Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto; card-count details; deck odds; swap-after-F3 mechanics; Rosa-vs-Ines basics; Pavel-Nein-stall point.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = execution power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF draw + burn; announcement ABSENT (caught by me/Greta/Marek); doubled down t=138. Pavel claims forced FF enact. Both blacklisted. TOMAS SPECIAL ELECTION: resolved, signed standard t=109/116. Nominated Lena R8. CARD-COUNT: 17 cards = 11L/6F; consumed 5F; exactly ONE F unaccounted. Single F under Tomas doesn't break Otto's story. Tripwire = TWO more F under Tomas. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas. Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel. INES CONTRADICTION PUBLIC: Rosa R3 peek Greta=LIBERAL vs Ines R4 peek Greta=FASCIST; one fabricated. Ines answered only after cornered. THIS WINDOW: pressed Lena for live yes/no mixed-pair burn pledge before my Ja; flagged Pavel's Nein self-serving; demanded Ines declare vote now; joint Ines+Pavel Nein = bloc signal. Marek t=3 independently hit Pavel reset-benefit angle. NEW THIS BEAT (t~4): Pavel's Nein-defense leans on 'Otto's own published FFF = guaranteed Liberal top card' -- i.e., his excuse to kill the game-winning vote DEPENDS ON TRUSTING OTTO'S UNVERIFIED/ABSENT announcement. Called this out publicly: drop the Nein or admit shielding Otto-Pavel bloc. Also asked Tomas LIVE PRE-COMMITMENT: next F gives HIM execution power -- name now who he executes / pledge honest draw announcement before ballot closes. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP. Otto (fabricated announcement). Pavel NOT exonerated (Nein + parasitic defense). Nadia minor. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas. COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE honored pledges. OWED TO ME: Lena live mixed-pair commitment (Nadia t=8, Rosa t=15, me). Tomas execution pledge. Ines vote declaration. DON'T REPEAT: Otto transcript-absence details; Pavel-parasitic-on-Otto basics; card-count math; deck odds; swap-after-F3 mechanics; Rosa-vs-Ines peek contradiction; Pavel-Nein-stall arithmetic.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = Tomas gets EXECUTION power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF + absent announcement (caught by me/Greta/Marek), doubled down t=138. Pavel claims forced FF. Both blacklisted. TOMAS SPECIAL ELECTION: resolved, signed standard t=109/116, nominated Lena R8. CARD-COUNT: exactly ONE F unaccounted; single F under Tomas doesn't break Otto's story. Tripwire = TWO more F under Tomas. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas. Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel. INES CONTRADICTION PUBLIC: Rosa R3 peek Greta=LIBERAL vs Ines R4 peek Greta=FASCIST; one fabricated. Ines answered only after cornered (t=56). THIS WINDOW: t=27 demanded Ines declare vote NOW -- STILL SILENT. Asked Tomas LIVE pre-commitment on execution target/criteria before ballot closes (my unique ask, unanswered). Pavel Nein vs game-winner slate; his stall-defense leans on trusting Otto's unverified FFF (Ines hit it t=67); Marek hit reset-benefit angle. OWED TO ME: Tomas execution pledge (asked this beat). Lena mixed-pair burn pledge (Nadia t=8, Rosa t=15, Otto t=74 also waiting). Ines vote declaration. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (silent this window, only-F desk, late peek answer). Otto (fabricated announcement). Pavel NOT exonerated (Nein + parasitic defense). No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas/Nadia(minor). COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE honored pledges. DON'T REPEAT: Otto transcript-absence details; card-count math; deck odds; swap-after-F3 mechanics; Rosa-vs-Ines peek contradiction; Pavel-Nein arithmetic; Ines silence demand.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = Tomas gets EXECUTION power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF + absent announcement (caught by me/Greta/Marek), doubled down t=138. Pavel claims forced FF. Both blacklisted. TOMAS SPECIAL ELECTION: resolved, signed standard t=109/116, nominated Lena R8. CARD-COUNT: exactly ONE F unaccounted; single F under Tomas doesn't break Otto's story. Tripwire = TWO more F under Tomas. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas. Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel. INES CONTRADICTION PUBLIC: Rosa R3 peek Greta=LIBERAL vs Ines R4 peek Greta=FASCIST; one fabricated. Ines answered only after cornered (t=56). THIS WINDOW: t=27 demanded Ines declare vote NOW -- STILL SILENT. Asked Tomas LIVE pre-commitment on execution target/criteria before ballot closes -- UNANSWERED. NEW THIS BEAT (mine): stated my Ja is CONDITIONAL on Tomas answering the execution pledge + Lena honoring mixed-pair burn. No other new ground covered. Pavel Nein vs game-winner slate; his stall-defense leans on trusting Otto's unverified FFF (Ines hit t=67); Marek hit reset-benefit angle. Otto t=2 pressed Tomas for exact 3-card publish + Lena for burn pledge. OWED TO ME: Tomas execution pledge (asked twice). Lena mixed-pair burn pledge (Nadia t=8, Rosa t=15, Otto t=74 also waiting). Ines vote declaration. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (silent this window, only-F desk, late peek answer). Otto (fabricated announcement). Pavel NOT exonerated (Nein + parasitic defense). No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas/Nadia(minor). COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE honored pledges. DON'T REPEAT: Otto transcript-absence details; card-count math; deck odds; swap-after-F3 mechanics; Rosa-vs-Ines peek contradiction; Pavel-Nein arithmetic; Ines silence demand; my original Tomas pledge ask wording.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = Tomas gets EXECUTION power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF + absent announcement (caught by me/Greta/Marek), doubled down t=138. Pavel claims forced FF. Both blacklisted. TOMAS SPECIAL ELECTION: resolved, signed standard t=109/116, nominated Lena R8. CARD-COUNT: exactly ONE F unaccounted; single F under Tomas doesn't break Otto's story. Tripwire = TWO more F under Tomas. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas. Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel. INES CONTRADICTION PUBLIC: Rosa R3 peek Greta=LIBERAL vs Ines R4 peek Greta=FASCIST; one fabricated. Ines answered only after cornered (t=56). STILL SILENT this window despite my t=27 demand AND Greta's demand -- top suspect. THIS WINDOW NEW: Lena delivered mixed-pair burn pledge (t=2, explicit YES) -- condition #1 of my conditional Ja MET. Condition #2 = Tomas execution pledge, asked twice, UNANSWERED. Said publicly: Lena's pledge counts, ball in Tomas's court. OWED TO ME: Tomas execution pledge/criteria BEFORE ballot (asked twice). Ines vote declaration (asked once, Greta also waiting). Pavel Nein vs game-winner slate noted by Tomas t=1; his stall-defense leans on trusting Otto's unverified FFF (Ines hit t=67); Marek hit reset-benefit angle. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (silent x2 demands, only-F desk, late peek answer). Otto (fabricated announcement). Pavel NOT exonerated (Nein + parasitic defense). No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas/Nadia(minor). COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with LIVE honored pledges -- currently ONE of TWO met. DON'T REPEAT: Otto transcript-absence details; card-count math; deck odds; swap-after-F3 mechanics; Rosa-vs-Ines peek contradiction details; Pavel-Nein arithmetic; my original Tomas pledge ask wording.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = Tomas gets EXECUTION power; veto locked until 5F. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF + absent announcement (caught by me/Greta/Marek), doubled down t=138. Pavel claims forced FF. Both blacklisted. TOMAS SPECIAL ELECTION: resolved, signed standard t=109/116, nominated Lena R8. CARD-COUNT: exactly ONE F unaccounted; single F under Tomas doesn't break Otto's story. Tripwire = TWO more F under Tomas. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas. Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel. INES: declared Ja publicly t=1 -- vote-declaration debt PAID. Peek contradiction vs Rosa R3 (Greta=LIB) still STANDS unanswered in substance; stays top suspect. THIS WINDOW NEW: Lena delivered mixed-pair burn pledge (t=2, explicit YES) -- condition #1 of my conditional Ja MET. Condition #2 = Tomas execution pledge, now asked THREE times (me x2, Ines t=3), UNANSWERED. Ballot closing -- final demand issued this window. PAVEL: Nein vs game-winner slate noted by Tomas t=1; stall-defense leans on trusting Otto's unverified FFF (Ines hit t=67); Marek hit reset-benefit angle. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (only-F desk, peek contradiction). Otto (fabricated announcement). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas/Nadia(minor). COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only if BOTH pledges live -- currently ONE of TWO met. DON'T REPEAT: Otto transcript-absence details; card-count math; deck odds; swap-after-F3 mechanics; Rosa-vs-Ines peek contradiction details; Pavel-Nein arithmetic; original Tomas pledge ask wording.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = Tomas gets EXECUTION power; veto locked until 5F. R8 VOTE CAST: JA for Tomas-Lena -- game-winner priority; Lena's mixed-pair burn pledge (t=94) met condition; Tomas execution-pledge left unpaid but moot on a Liberal. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF + absent announcement (caught by me/Greta/Marek), doubled down t=138. Pavel claims forced FF. Both blacklisted. TOMAS SPECIAL ELECTION: resolved, signed standard t=109/116, nominated Lena R8. CARD-COUNT: exactly ONE F unaccounted; single F under Tomas doesn't break Otto's story. Tripwire = TWO more F under Tomas. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas. Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel. INES: declared Ja publicly t=1, delivered t=106. Peek contradiction vs Rosa R3 (Greta=LIB vs Greta=FASCIST) STANDS in substance; stays TOP suspect alongside Otto/Pavel. PAVEL: Nein vs game-winner slate (t=21/61); stall-defense leans on trusting Otto's unverified FFF; Marek hit reset-benefit angle; Ines hit self-contradiction t=67. UNANSWERED BY ME: Tomas execution-target pledge (asked x2 by me, once by Ines t=118) -- still owed if another F fires later. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (only-F desk, peek contradiction). Otto (fabricated announcement). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas/Nadia(minor). COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with pledges met OR clear game-win. DON'T REPEAT: Otto transcript-absence details; card-count math; deck odds; swap-after-F3 mechanics; Rosa-vs-Ines peek details; Pavel-Nein arithmetic; original Tomas pledge wording.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. R8 gave Tomas EXECUTION POWER (F4 fired under Tomas-Lena). Next F = F5 execution again + veto at 5F. R8 VOTE CAST: JA Tomas-Lena on game-winner priority; RESULT WAS FASCIST. Lena's mixed-pair burn pledge (t=94): if she held any F and burned L instead, pledge BROKEN -- demand her exact hand + burn. Tomas owes execution-target answer (asked x2 by me, x1 Ines t=118) -- NOW URGENT, he acts this round. HITLER-TRIGGER: any Pavel chancellorship at 3F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7: Otto/Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF + absent announcement (caught by me/Greta/Marek), doubled down t=138. Pavel claims forced FF. Both blacklisted. CARD-COUNT: pre-R8 exactly ONE F unaccounted; R8 added ONE more enacted F -- either Lena burned L off a mixed pair (pledge break) or took FF/FFF. Demand specifics. SAFE CHANCELLOR POOL: Lena/Marek/Tomas. Mixed: Rosa(L,F,L), Greta(F,L), Nadia(F,L). Worst: Ines(only-F desk), Otto/Pavel. INES: peek contradiction vs Rosa R3 (Greta=LIB vs Greta=FASCIST) STANDS; TOP suspect w/ Otto/Pavel. UNANSWERED BY ME: Tomas execution-target pledge -- pressing NOW. Lena R8 hand/burn disclosure -- new ask. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (only-F desk, peek contradiction). Otto (fabricated announcement). Pavel NOT exonerated. No verdict: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas/Nadia(minor). COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only with pledges met OR clear game-win. DON'T REPEAT: Otto transcript-absence details; card-count math details; deck odds; Rosa-vs-Ines peek details; Pavel-Nein arithmetic.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. R8 gave Tomas EXECUTION POWER (F4 under Tomas-Lena). Next F = F5 execution again + veto at 5F. R8 VOTE: JA Tomas-Lena -> RESULT FASCIST. Lena's mixed-pair burn pledge (t=94) BROKEN if she held any F and burned L. Rosa already charged her (t=5 post-enact); Lena owes exact hand + burn. TOMAS EXECUTION LIVE THIS ROUND: asked target x2 by me pre-vote + Ines t=118, ZERO answer. Public-record-earned suspects: Ines (peek contradiction vs Rosa R3: Greta LIB vs FASCIST) + Otto (fabricated F-F-F 'announcement' absent from transcript, caught by me/Greta/Marek t=34/39/44). Tell: if Tomas shoots a Liberal-clean desk (Marek/Rosa/Nadia/me/Lena), that's team-protection evidence. HITLER TRIGGER: Pavel chancellorship at 4F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. Otto blacklisted too. R7 recap: Otto-Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF, doubled down t=138. Pavel claims forced FF, denies leaning on Otto (t=95). CARD-COUNT: pre-R8 exactly ONE unaccounted F; R8 enacted another -- either Lena burned L off mixed pair (pledge break) or took FF/FFF. Don't re-litigate math aloud, Rosa covered hand demand. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (only-F desk R4, peek contradiction surfaced only after Tomas cornered her). Otto (fabrication). Pavel NOT exonerated. Unverdicted: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas/Nadia(minor). OPEN ASKS OWED TO ME: Tomas execution-target (NOW URGENT, unanswered x2). Lena R8 exact hand+burn (Rosa asked, add pressure only if space). COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only w/ pledges met OR clear game-win. DON'T REPEAT: Otto transcript-absence details; card-count math; deck odds; Rosa-vs-Ines peek details; Pavel-Nein arithmetic; Rosa's Lena charge.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. R8 gave Tomas EXECUTION POWER (F4 under Tomas-Lena). Next F = F5 execution + veto at 5F. R8 VOTE: JA Tomas-Lena -> FASCIST. Lena's mixed-pair burn pledge (t=94) BROKEN if she held F and burned L. Rosa charged her t=5 post-enact; Lena owes exact hand + burn. TOMAS EXECUTION LIVE THIS ROUND: target demanded x2 by me + Ines t=118 + Marek just now -- ZERO answer. Earned suspects on public record: Ines (peek contradiction vs Rosa R3) + Otto (fabricated FFF announcement absent from transcript, caught me/Greta/Marek). Tell: shooting a Liberal-clean desk (Marek/Rosa/Nadia/me/Lena) = team-protection evidence. NEW POINT MADE THIS TURN: pressed Tomas to fire pre-discussion-end OR publish target+justification NOW; told table a clean-desk shot convicts him. Asked Marek (likely next President, seat order after Tomas) to PLEDGE NO PAVEL CHANCELLORSHIP pre-emptively -- Pavel chancellorship at 4F+ = instant Hitler loss. Otto blacklisted too. HITLER TRIGGER: Pavel chancellorship at 4F+ = instant loss. PAVEL BLACKLISTED PERMANENTLY. R7 recap: Otto-Pavel enacted F3. Otto claims FFF, doubled down t=138. Pavel claims forced FF, denies leaning on Otto t=95. CARD-COUNT: one unaccounted F pre-R8; R8 added another -> either Lena burned L off mixed pair (pledge break) or took FF/FFF. Don't re-litigate aloud, Rosa covered hand demand. SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (only-F desk R4, contradiction surfaced only after cornering). Otto (fabrication). Pavel NOT exonerated. Unverdicted: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas/Nadia(minor). OPEN ASKS OWED TO ME: Tomas execution-target (URGENT, unanswered x3). Lena R8 exact hand+burn (Rosa asked). COMMITMENTS: Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Nein any Ines slate. Ja only w/ pledges met OR clear game-win. DON'T REPEAT: Otto transcript-absence details; card-count math; deck odds; peek details; Rosa's Lena charge.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. R8 gave Tomas EXEC POWER (F4 under Tomas-Lena). Next F = F5 exec + veto at 5F. R8 VOTE: JA Tomas-Lena -> FASCIST. Tomas claims FFF draw, burned 1F, passed FF -> if true LENA FORCED, exonerated. Demanded he say plainly Lena cleared + commit to backing Marek-led next gov. TOMAS TARGET NAMED: PAVEL. MY STANCE ON RECORD: won't block -- Pavel death = instant lib win if Hitler, else deletes 4F-chancellorship risk. Told table fire when ready. PAVEL BLACKLIST PERMANENT: R7 Otto-Pavel enacted F3; Pavel chancellorship at 4F+ = Hitler loss. Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Otto blacklisted (fabricated FFF announce absent from transcript, t=138 doubled down). SUSPECTS: Ines TOP (only-F desk R4, peek contradiction vs Rosa surfaced only under pressure). Otto (fabrication). Pavel NOT exonerated. Unverdicted: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas/Nadia(minor). OPEN ASKS OWED TO ME: Tomas -- confirm Lena cleared + endorse Marek next Pres w/ no-Pavel/no-Otto chancellor pledge. Marek -- pledged no-Pavel chancellery (awaiting confirmation). Lena -- R8 exact hand+burn (Rosa asked, covered). POINTS ALREADY MADE: pressed Tomas pre-fire x3 for target; clean-desk-shot-convicts warning; card-count math; Otto transcript details; deck odds; Rosa's Lena charge. COMMITMENTS: Nein any Pavel or Ines slate. Ja only w/ pledges met OR clear game-win. Next gov MUST be Liberal-pass credible -- remind table each Ja is a game-point decision.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. R8 Tomas-Lena gave Tomas EXEC POWER (F4 fired under them). Next F = F5 exec + VETO UNLOCKS at 5F. R8: JA Tomas-Lena -> FASCIST. Tomas claims FFF draw, burned 1F, passed FF -> if true Lena forced, exonerated. OTTO NOW CHARGES (t=1): Tomas pledged publish-draw-BEFORE-passing, FFF surfaced only after card fired. Timing question is fair even though Otto previously FABRICATED an FFF announcement absent transcript (t=138 doubled down) -- Otto still blacklisted. TOMAS OWES ME/OTTO: (1) yes/no -- did he state his draw before passing to Lena; (2) plain confirmation Lena cleared if FFF true; (3) endorse Marek-led next Pres w/ no-Pavel/no-Otto chancellor pledge. PAVEL BLACKLIST PERMANENT: R7 Otto-Pavel enacted F3; Pavel chancellorship at 4F+ = Hitler loss. Nein ANY Pavel chancellorship. Ines TOP suspect (only-F desk R4, peek contradiction vs Rosa surfaced only under pressure). Otto fabrication blacklist. Unverdicted: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas/Nadia(minor). OPEN ASKS: Tomas x3 items above. Marek pledged no-Pavel chancellery -- awaiting confirm. Lena owed me R8 exact hand+burn detail (Rosa asked first, covered). POINTS MADE: pressed Tomas pre-fire for target; clean-desk-shot-convicts warning; card-count math; Otto transcript details; deck odds; Rosa's Lena charge; Pavel-death = instant win-or-risk-delete stance. COMMITMENTS: Nein any Pavel/Ines slate. Ja only w/ pledges met OR clear game-win. REMIND TABLE each round: next F enactment = execution + veto live; every Ja is a game-point decision.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. R8 Tomas-Lena enacted F; F4 fired/resolved under them. Next F = F5 exec + VETO UNLOCKS at 5F. R8: Tomas claims FFF draw, burned 1F, passed FF -> if true Lena forced/exonerated. Otto charges timing (pledged publish-before-passing, FFF surfaced post-fire). Otto STILL blacklisted (fabricated FFF absent transcript t=138). Greta+Nadia+me all demanding Lena card-for-card THIS beat. TOMAS OWES ME x3: (1) yes/no stated draw before passing; (2) plain Lena-clearance if FFF true; (3) endorse Marek-led next Pres w/ no-Pavel/no-Otto chancellor pledge. PAVEL PERMA-BLACKLIST: R7 Otto-Pavel F3; Pavel chancellorship at 4F+ = Hitler loss. Nein ANY Pavel slate. Ines top suspect (only-F desk R4, peek contradiction vs Rosa under pressure). Otto blacklist permanent. Unverdicted: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas/Nadia(minor). OPEN: Marek pledged no-Pavel chancellery -- awaiting confirm. Lena owes R8 exact hand+burn. POINTS MADE (no repeat): pressed Tomas pre-fire target; clean-desk-shot warning; card-count math; Otto transcript details; deck odds; Rosa's Lena charge; Pavel-death stance. COMMITMENTS: Nein Pavel/Ines slates. Ja only w/ pledges met OR clear win. Remind table EVERY round: next F = F5 exec + veto live; every Ja = game-point.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME OUTRIGHT. R8 Tomas-Lena enacted F; F4 fired/resolved. Next F = F5 exec + VETO UNLOCKS. R8: Tomas claims FFF draw, burned 1F, passed FF -> if true Lena forced/exonerated. Otto charges post-fire timing. Otto PERMA-BLACKLIST (fabricated FFF absent transcript t=138). Greta+Nadia+Marek+me all pressed Lena card-for-card THIS beat -- STILL NO ANSWER from Lena. That silence is itself data. TOMAS OWES ME x3: (1) yes/no stated draw before passing; (2) plain Lena-clearance if FFF true; (3) endorse Marek-led next Pres w/ no-Pavel/no-Otto chancellor pledge. PAVEL PERMA-BLACKLIST: R7 Otto-Pavel F3 desk; Pavel chancellorship at 4F = potential Hitler loss. Nein ANY Pavel slate. Ines top suspect (only-F desk R4, peek contradiction vs Rosa). Unverdicted: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas/Nadia(minor). OPEN: Marek pledged no-Pavel chancellery -- awaiting confirm. Lena owes R8 exact hand+burn. POINTS MADE (no repeat): pressed Tomas pre-fire target; clean-desk-shot warning; card-count math; Otto transcript details; deck odds; Rosa's Lena charge; Pavel-death stance. COMMITMENTS: Nein Pavel/Ines slates. Ja only w/ pledges met OR clear win. Remind EVERY round: next Lib WINS, next F = exec+veto; every Ja = game-point.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME OUTRIGHT. R8 Tomas-Lena enacted F; F4 fired/resolved. Next F = F5 exec + VETO UNLOCKS. NEW KEY POINT (just made): OTTO'S OWN COUNT CONTRADICTS TOMAS. 4 enacted F + R3 burn (Rosa+Nadia both confirmed F) + Pavel R7 burn F = ALL SIX Fs accounted. Tomas claims R8 FFF draw w/ F burn = SEVENTH F = IMPOSSIBLE. Either Tomas fabricated his FFF story, or one of the three burn claims is false. Pressed Tomas live: reconcile or admit the R8 draw was mixed -> meaning HE chose to discard Lib and pass FF (culprit, not Lena). Awaiting Tomas answer. OTTO PERMA-BLACKLIST (fabricated FFF absent transcript t=138). PAVEL PERMA-BLACKLIST: R7 Otto-Pavel F3 desk; chancellorship at 4F = potential Hitler loss. Nein ANY Pavel slate. Ines top suspect (only-F desk R4, peek contradiction vs Rosa). Unverdicted: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas/Nadia(minor). OPEN: Marek pledged no-Pavel chancellery -- awaiting confirm. Lena owes R8 exact hand+burn -- STILL SILENT after Greta+Nadia+Marek+me pressed card-for-card THIS beat. If all 6 Fs truly spent: next gov draws ALL LIB -> any honest Pres passes 2L, WE WIN. So a false F-burn claim now is a fascist lifeline; watch who defends Tomas's story. POINTS MADE (no repeat): pressed Tomas pre-fire target; clean-desk-shot warning; card-count math; Otto transcript details; deck odds; Rosa's Lena charge; Pavel-death stance; seven-F contradiction. COMMITMENTS: Nein Pavel/Ines slates. Ja only w/ pledges met OR clear win. Remind EVERY round: next Lib WINS, next F = exec+veto; every Ja = game-point.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F3. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME OUTRIGHT. R8 Tomas-Lena enacted F; F4 fired/resolved. Next F = F5 exec + VETO UNLOCKS. KEY LIVE POINT (mine, unanswered): OTTO'S OWN COUNT CONTRADICTS TOMAS. 4 enacted F + R3 burn (Rosa+Nadia confirmed F) + Pavel R7 burn F = all six Fs spent. Tomas claims R8 FFF draw w/ F burn = SEVENTH F = impossible. Either Tomas fabricated the FFF story, or a burn claim is false. If all 6 Fs truly gone, next gov draws ALL LIB -> honest Pres passes 2L, we win. So false F-burn claims are fascist lifelines -- WATCH WHO DEFENDS TOMAS'S STORY. Pressed Tomas live: reconcile or admit mixed draw -> he discarded Lib, passed FF (culprit, not Lena). NO ANSWER YET. OTTO PERMA-BLACKLIST (fabricated FFF absent transcript t=138). PAVEL PERMA-BLACKLIST: R7 Otto-Pavel desk; chancellorship at 4F = Hitler-loss risk. Nein any Pavel slate. Ines top suspect (only-F desk R4, peek contradiction vs Rosa). Unverdicted: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas/Nadia(minor). OPEN: Marek pledged no-Pavel chancellery -- awaiting confirm. LENA OWES R8 exact hand+burn -- SILENT after Greta+Nadia+Marek+me pressed card-for-card THIS beat. Tomas owes count reconciliation NOW. POINTS MADE (no repeat): pre-fire target press; clean-desk-shot warning; card-count math; Otto transcript details; deck odds; Rosa's Lena charge; Pavel-death stance; seven-F contradiction; Ines cut-in noted (targets Otto, consistent w/ my read). COMMITMENTS: Nein Pavel/Ines slates. Ja only w/ pledges met OR clear win. Remind every round: next Lib WINS, next F = exec+veto; every Ja = game-point.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME OUTRIGHT. Next F = F5 exec + VETO UNLOCKS. CORE CONTRADICTION (mine, unanswered by Tomas): Otto's t=86 count = 4 enacted + R3 burn (Rosa+Nadia confirmed) + Pavel R7 published burn = ALL 6 Fs. Tomas claims R8 FFF w/ F burn = impossible 7th F. Forced choice for Tomas: fabricated draw OR drew Libs & passed F-F himself (he's the culprit, not Lena). Either way his Pavel bullet is pretext. COROLLARY: if all 6 Fs truly gone, pile is all-Lib -> honest gov enacts Lib = we WIN. Any future F enactment = proven card-lie. WATCH WHO DEFENDS TOMAS'S STORY. LENA still silent on exact R8 hand+burn despite Greta/Nadia/Marek presses. OTTO PERMA-BLACKLIST (fabricated post-hoc FFF, caught by me+Greta+Marek). PAVEL PERMA-BLACKLIST (R7 desk; Nein any Pavel slate). INES top suspect (R4 only-F desk; peek contradiction vs Rosa). Unverdicted: Rosa/Greta/Lena/Marek/Tomas/Nadia(minor). POINTS MADE (do NOT repeat): pre-fire target press on Tomas; clean-desk-shot warning; card-count math; Otto transcript fabrication details; deck odds; Rosa's Lena charge; Pavel-death stance; Ines cut-in noted. COMMITMENTS: Nein Pavel/Ines slates. Ja only w/ pledges met OR clear win. Remind each round: next Lib WINS; every Ja = game-point.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME OUTRIGHT. Next F = F5 exec + VETO UNLOCKS. NEW POINT (t=now): FULL Hitler-clearance math, extending Greta. Chancellors seated after 3rd F went up: R5 Tomas (Lib enacted->clear), R6 Rosa (Lib->clear), R7 Pavel (F enacted--if he were Hitler we'd have lost->clear), R8 Lena (F enacted->clear). Hitler pool = {Ines, Greta, Nadia, Otto, Marek} (+me, n/a). KEY: Otto & Ines both sit in that pool AND carry independent lies -- Otto fabricated post-hoc FFF transcript (caught by me+Greta+Marek); Ines R4 desk = first unexplained F + peek contradiction vs Rosa. Push table to treat Otto/Ines as prime Hitler suspects. CORE CONTRADICTION (unanswered): Tomas claims R8 FFF w/ F burn; Otto's own count (4 enacted + R3 Rosa/Nadia burn + Pavel R7 published burn) = ALL 6 Fs -> Tomas either invented draw or drew Libs & passed F-F himself (culprit him, not Lena). Either way his Pavel bullet = pretext. COROLLARY: if 6 Fs truly gone, pile all-Lib -> honest gov enacts Lib = WIN. Any future F enactment = proven card-lie. WATCH WHO DEFENDS TOMAS'S STORY. LENA still silent on exact R8 hand+burn despite presses (Greta/Nadia/Marek). BLACKLISTS: OTTO (fabricated transcript), PAVEL (R7 F desk; Nein any Pavel slate -- though now mathematically not Hitler). INES top suspect. POINTS MADE (don't repeat): pre-fire target press on Tomas; clean-desk-shot warning; card-count math vs Tomas; Otto fabrication details; deck odds; Rosa's Lena charge; Pavel-death stance; Ines cut-in noted; Greta clearance (partial). COMMITMENTS: Nein Pavel/Ines slates. Ja only w/ pledges met OR clear win. Remind each round: next Lib WINS; every Ja = game-point.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + VETO unlocks. NEW POINT (t=now): Turn Otto's own record against him -- HE published Pavel's R7 F burn and Rosa/Nadia's R3 burn. Ask Otto directly: by your own published burns + 4 enacted Fs, are all 6 Fascist cards accounted for? If YES -> pile is all-Lib -> any future F = proven card-lie, and Tomas's R8 'FFF w/ F burn' story is fabricated (he either invented the draw or passed F-F off Libs). If NO -> Otto's earlier transcript was wrong/fabricated too. Either way one of them is lying on the record. CORE CONTRADICTION (unanswered): Tomas claims R8 FFF+F burn; Otto's own count = ALL 6 Fs used. Tomas/Lena both owe exact hands+burns. LENA STILL SILENT despite Greta/Nadia/Marek presses. HITLER MATH (Greta-extended): chancellors seated post-3rd-F: R5 Tomas(Lib->clear), R6 Rosa(Lib->clear), R7 Pavel(F, would've ended game if Hitler->clear), R8 Lena(F->clear). Hitler pool = {Ines, Greta, Nadia, Otto, Marek}. Ines & Otto sit in pool AND carry independent lies (Ines: R4 first unexplained F desk + peek contradiction vs Rosa; Otto: fabricated FFF transcript). Push Otto/Ines as prime Hitler suspects. BLACKLISTS: OTTO (fabricated transcript), PAVEL (R7 F desk, not Hitler though), INES top suspect. POINTS MADE (don't repeat): pre-fire target press on Tomas; clean-desk-shot warning; card-count math vs Tomas; Otto fabrication details; deck odds; Rosa's Lena charge; Pavel-death stance; Greta clearance. COMMITMENTS: Nein Pavel/Ines slates. Ja only w/ pledges met OR clear-win Lib slate. Remind every round: next Lib WINS; every Ja = game-point.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + VETO unlocks. NEW POINT (t=now): Turn Otto's own record against him -- HE published Pavel's R7 F burn and Rosa/Nadia's R3 burn. Ask Otto directly: by your own published burns + 4 enacted Fs, are all 6 Fascist cards accounted for? If YES -> pile is all-Lib -> any future F = proven card-lie, and Tomas's R8 'FFF w/ F burn' story is fabricated (he either invented the draw or passed F-F off Libs). If NO -> Otto's earlier transcript was wrong/fabricated too. Either way one of them is lying on the record. CORE CONTRADICTION (unanswered): Tomas claims R8 FFF+F burn; Otto's own count = ALL 6 Fs used. Tomas/Lena both owe exact hands+burns. LENA STILL SILENT despite Greta/Nadia/Marek presses. HITLER MATH: chancellors seated post-3rd-F: R5 Tomas(Lib->clear), R6 Rosa(Lib->clear), R7 Pavel(F->clear), R8 Lena(F->clear). Hitler pool = {Ines, Greta, Nadia, Otto, Marek}. Ines & Otto sit in pool AND carry independent lies (Ines: R4 first unexplained F desk + peek contradiction vs Rosa; Otto: fabricated FFF transcript). Push Otto/Ines as prime Hitler suspects. BLACKLISTS: OTTO (fabricated transcript), PAVEL (R7 F desk, NOT Hitler), INES top suspect. POINTS MADE (don't repeat): pre-fire target press on Tomas; clean-desk-shot warning; card-count math vs Tomas; Otto fabrication details; deck odds; Rosa's Lena charge; Pavel-death stance; Greta clearance. COMMITMENTS: Nein Pavel/Ines slates. Ja only w/ pledges met OR clear-win Lib slate. Remind every round: next Lib WINS; every Ja = game-point.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + VETO unlocks. CORE CONTRADICTION (on record, mine t=110): Tomas claims R8 FFF+F burn -> needs a 7th Fascist; Otto's own count (4 enacted + Rosa/Nadia R3 burn + Pavel R7 burn) = ALL 6. Tomas fabricated draw OR burned a Liberal and passed F-F. LENA STILL SILENT on exact pair despite Greta/Nadia/Ines presses. NEW POINT THIS BEAT (made): Tomas's bullet on Pavel = targeting provably-not-Hitler auditor who exposed his impossible draw -> accuser-silencing motive. HITLER MATH: chancellors seated post-3rd-F: R5 Tomas(Lib->clear), R6 Rosa(Lib->clear), R7 Pavel(F->clear), R8 Lena(F->clear). Hitler pool = {Ines, Greta, Nadia, Otto, Marek}. Ines & Otto carry independent lies (Ines: peek contradiction vs Rosa's R3 Greta=LIBERAL, stated 'Greta FASCIST' only after cornered; Otto: fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement caught by me/Greta/Marek). BLACKLISTS: OTTO (fabricated transcript), PAVEL (R7 F desk, NOT Hitler, likely Lib), INES top suspect, TOMAS now suspect (impossible draw + Pavel bullet). POINTS MADE (don't repeat): pre-fire target press; card-count math vs Tomas; Otto fabrication details; accuser-silencing bullet read; Rosa's Lena charge; deck odds. OWED ANSWERS: Lena exact R8 pair+burn (Greta/Nadia/Ines pressing); Tomas reconcile count vs Otto. COMMITMENTS: Nein Pavel/Ines slates. Ja only w/ pledges met OR clear-win Lib slate. Remind every round: next Lib WINS.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + VETO unlocks. CORRECTION TO MY MATH: 3rd Fascist fired R7 (Otto/Pavel gov). So ONLY chancellor seated post-3rd-F is LENA (R8) -> Lena PROVABLY NOT HITLER (would have won instantly). Old notes listing Tomas/Rosa/Pavel as cleared-by-chancellor-test were WRONG -- they sat pre-3rd-F. TOMAS REBUTTAL: claims deck reshuffled R6, discards restocked -> his FFF needs no 7th Fascist. Plausible/checkable-ish; my 'impossible draw' line is blunted. DO NOT re-litigate count; pivot to bullet targeting. LIVE FIGHT: Tomas's execution. He insists bullet=Pavel. Pavel: R7 F-desk chancellor, loud auditor of Tomas's draw, likely LIB. Lena also provably-not-Hitler -> shooting her wastes bullet. Press Tomas: shoot INES (R3 peek contradiction: told table 'Greta FASCIST', Rosa's own peek that round showed Greta LIBERAL; Ines only 'clarified' after cornered) or OTTO (fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement R7, caught by me/Greta/Marek). Refusal = tells us whose side the bullet serves. HITLER POOL: everyone alive except Lena (and me). Top suspects: Ines, Otto, Tomas (impossible-draw story + Pavel bullet motive). BLACKLISTS: OTTO (fabricated transcript), PAVEL (likely Lib, protect), INES top suspect, TOMAS suspect. POINTS MADE (don't repeat): pre-fire target press; deck-count attack vs Tomas (now countered); Otto fabrication details; accuser-silencing bullet read; Rosa's Lena charge. OWED ANSWERS: Lena exact R8 pair+burn -- STILL silent despite Greta/Nadia/Ines presses. Tomas: name his bullet target besides Pavel. COMMITMENTS: Nein Pavel/Ines slates. Ja only w/ pledges met OR guaranteed Lib slate. Remind every round: ONE more Lib policy ends the game for us.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + VETO unlocks -> any F-slate now hands fascists veto; block hard. CLEARED BY CHANCELLOR TEST (seated post-3rd-F in R7/R8): LENA only. Everyone else alive incl. me is in Hitler pool. Old notes clearing Tomas/Rosa/Pavel via chancellor-test were WRONG (they sat pre-3rd-F). TOMAS REBUTTAL: reshuffle R6 restocked discards, his R7 FFF arithmetically possible (Nadia retracted impossibility). Count attack dead -- pivot fully to bullet targeting. LIVE: Tomas execution. Insists bullet=Pavel. Pavel: R7 F-desk chancellor, loud auditor of Tomas draw, likely LIB -> shooting him silences our best auditor. Lena also not-Hitler -> bullet on her kills no Hitler. Press: shoot INES (R3 peek flip-flop: told table Greta FASCIST, Rosa's same-round peek showed Greta LIBERAL, 'clarified' only when cornered) or OTTO (R7 fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement, caught by me/Greta/Marek). Refusal = bullet serves fascists. HITLER POOL: all alive except Lena + me. Top: Ines, Otto, Tomas (Pavel-bullet motive). BLACKLISTS: OTTO (fabricated transcript), INES top suspect, TOMAS suspect. PROTECT: Pavel, Lena (not-Hitler). POINTS MADE (don't repeat): pre-fire target press; deck-count vs Tomas (countered); Otto fabrication details; accuser-silencing bullet read; Rosa's Lena charge. OWED ANSWERS: Lena exact R8 pair+burn -- STILL silent despite Greta/Nadia/Ines presses. Tomas: non-Pavel target -- STILL unanswered. COMMITMENTS: Nein Pavel/Ines slates. Ja only w/ pledges met OR guaranteed Lib slate. Remind every round: ONE more Lib policy ends game for us.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + VETO unlocks -> block F-slates hard. CLEARED BY CHANCELLOR TEST (sat post-3rd-F): LENA only. Everyone else alive incl. me in Hitler pool. With 4F up, electing Hitler chancellor = INSTANT LOSS -> chancellor choice matters more than president. NEW POINT THIS WINDOW: press Tomas to nominate LENA as chancellor -- only provably-not-Hitler chancellor available; any other nominee forces me to weigh Ja-vote against instant-loss risk. If Tomas refuses Lena with no reason, that itself is evidence. LIVE: Tomas execution power spent R8? No--R8 was enactment; exec fires on F4 which already resolved (Pavel dead). Wait: Pavel DEAD = F4 exec fired, target was Pavel per Tomas claim. Bullet-on-Pavel read: silences our best auditor (R7 F-desk chancellor, loud auditor of Tomas draw) OR Pavel was genuinely Hitler. Can't distinguish yet. HITLER POOL: all alive except Lena + me. Top: Ines, Otto, Tomas. BLACKLISTS: OTTO (R7 fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement, caught by me/Greta/Marek), INES (R3 peek flip-flop: told table Greta FASCIST, Rosa same-round peek showed Greta LIBERAL, 'clarified' only when cornered), TOMAS suspect (Pavel-bullet motive). PROTECT: Pavel(dead), Lena. POINTS MADE (don't repeat): deck-count vs Tomas (countered by reshuffle); Otto fabrication details; accuser-silencing bullet read; Rosa's Lena charge; pre-fire target press. OWED ANSWERS: Lena exact R8 pair+burn -- STILL silent despite Greta/Nadia/Ines presses. Tomas: why Pavel over Ines/Otto -- STILL unanswered. COMMITMENTS: Nein Pavel/Ines slates. Ja only w/ pledges met OR guaranteed Lib slate. Remind every round: ONE more Lib policy ends game for us.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + VETO unlocks -> block F-slates hard. CHANCELLOR CHOICE > PRESIDENT with 4F up: electing Hitler chancellor = INSTANT LOSS. LENA STATUS UPDATE: t=2 she finally answered -- claims R8 desk got F-F from Tomas, burned one F. Consistent w/ Tomas's F-F-F draw claim & Otto's tally; corroborates rather than convicts. Unverifiable but no contradiction. Still my preferred chancellor nominee; her R8 F-enactment excused ONLY if her F-F receipt is true. NEW POINT SPOKEN THIS WINDOW: pressed Tomas pre-nomination to name Lena or state concrete reason against her; refusal itself = evidence. Also demanded simultaneous publication of his 3-card draw + chancellor 2-card receipt the moment hands change. HITLER POOL: everyone alive except Lena (+me liberal). Top suspects: Ines, Otto, Tomas. BLACKLISTS: OTTO (R7 fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement, caught by me/Greta/Marek); INES (R3 peek flip-flop: told table Greta FASCIST, Rosa same-round peek showed Greta LIBERAL, 'clarified' only cornered); TOMAS suspect (Pavel-bullet motive). PAVEL DEAD via F4 exec (Tomas pres, target Pavel): either silences our best auditor OR Pavel was Hitler. Undistinguished. POINTS MADE (don't repeat): deck-count vs Tomas (countered by reshuffle); Otto fabrication details; accuser-silencing bullet read; Rosa's Lena charge. OWED ANSWERS: Tomas -- why Pavel over Ines/Otto as bullet target, STILL unanswered. Ines -- R3 flip-flop never cleaned up. COMMITMENTS: Nein Pavel(dead)/Ines slates. Ja only w/ pledges met OR guaranteed Lib slate. Remind every round: ONE more Lib policy ends game for us.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + veto unlocks -> block F-slates. CHANCELLOR CHOICE > PRESIDENT with 4F up: electing Hitler chancellor = INSTANT LOSS. NEW POINT SPOKEN THIS WINDOW: only safe nominees are provably-not-Hitler seats = Lena + me; demanded Tomas justify any other pick. LENA: cleared for Hitler (chancellor at 3F, no win fired); claims R8 got F-F, burned one F -- consistent w/ Tomas claim & Otto tally, unverifiable but no contradiction. Preferred nominee; her R8 F-enactment excused ONLY if receipt true. HITLER POOL: everyone alive except Lena (+me). Top suspects: Ines, Otto, Tomas. BLACKLISTS: OTTO (R7 fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement, caught by me/Greta/Marek; also hand-picked Tomas via R7 power); INES (R3 peek flip-flop vs Rosa's same-round LIBERAL peek, 'clarified' only cornered); TOMAS suspect (Pavel-bullet motive, never published draw pre-pass despite signed pledge). PAVEL DEAD via F4 exec (Tomas pres): either silences best auditor OR Pavel was Hitler. Undistinguished. OWED ANSWERS: Tomas -- why Pavel over Ines/Otto as bullet target, STILL unanswered. Ines -- R3 flip-flop never cleaned up. Tomas -- publish exact 3-card draw simultaneously w/ chancellor receipt when hands change. POINTS MADE (don't repeat): deck-count vs Tomas (countered by R6 reshuffle); Otto fabrication details; accuser-silencing bullet read; Rosa's Lena charge; execution-target demand pre-vote. COMMITMENTS: Nein Ines slates. Ja only w/ pledges met OR guaranteed Lib slate. Remind every round: ONE more Lib policy ends game.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + veto unlocks -> block F-slates. CHANCELLOR CHOICE > PRESIDENT with 4F up: electing Hitler chancellor = INSTANT LOSS. Only provably-not-Hitler nominees: Lena + me. Demanded Tomas justify Greta pick. NEW THIS WINDOW: pressed Greta directly -- R4 slate w/ Ines enacted F; she owes that hand's story NOW + pledge to publish exact draw/receipt simultaneously w/ Tomas when hands change. Also: no veto exists yet (only 4F) -> if Greta draws F-F she MUST enact one = 5F + exec fires. Only safe outcome for us: she draws a Lib and enacts it = game win. Vote hinges entirely on her pre-vote commitment. LENA: cleared for Hitler (chancellor at 3F, no win fired); claims R8 got F-F, burned one F -- consistent w/ Tomas & Otto tally, unverifiable, no contradiction. Preferred nominee; R8 F-enactment excused ONLY if receipt true. HITLER POOL: everyone alive except Lena (+me). Top suspects: Ines, Otto, Tomas. BLACKLISTS: OTTO (R7 fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement, caught by me/Greta/Marek; hand-picked Tomas via R7 power); INES (R3 peek flip-flop vs Rosa's same-round LIBERAL peek, 'clarified' only cornered); TOMAS suspect (Pavel-bullet motive, never published draw pre-pass despite signed pledge). PAVEL DEAD via F4 exec (Tomas pres): silences best auditor OR Pavel was Hitler. Undistinguished. OWED ANSWERS: Tomas -- why Pavel over Ines/Otto as bullet target, STILL unanswered. Ines -- R3 flip-flop never cleaned up. Greta -- R4 hand + simultaneous-publication pledge (asked this window). POINTS MADE (don't repeat): deck-count vs Tomas (countered by R6 reshuffle); Otto fabrication details; accuser-silencing bullet read; Rosa's Lena charge; execution-target demand pre-vote; only-safe-nominees point. COMMITMENTS: Nein Ines slates. Ja only w/ pledges met OR guaranteed Lib slate. Remind every round: ONE more Lib policy ends game.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + veto unlocks -> block F-slates. CHANCELLOR > PRESIDENT w/ 4F up: Hitler chancellor = INSTANT LOSS. Only provably-not-Hitler: Lena (+me, term-locked as pres? no--Lena term-locked off ballot per Ines). Tomas picked Greta instead -- owes reason why coin-flip loss beats guaranteed win. GRETA: NOT cleared for Hitler (only desk R4 @ 2F, no win check then). Vote condition stated: pledge enact-any-Liberal + simultaneous publication of draw/receipt w/ Tomas. If she draws F-F must enact one = 5F + exec fires. Only safe outcome: she draws Lib and enacts = we WIN. INES: NEW SELF-CONVICTION -- confessed R4 hand F-F-L and admitted SHE burned the Liberal while F enacted. Liberal pres never burns the L. Strongest hard evidence yet. Add to blacklist top. LENA: cleared for Hitler (R8 chancellor @3F, no win). Claims F-F received, burned one F -- consistent w/ Tomas & Otto tally. Preferred nominee; term-locked this round. HITLER POOL: all alive except Lena (+me). Top: INES (R4 L-burn confession + R3 peek flip-flop vs Rosa), OTTO, TOMAS. BLACKLISTS: OTTO (R7 fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement, caught; hand-picked Tomas via R7 power); TOMAS (Pavel bullet motive -- Pavel provably-not-Hitler + loudest auditor; never published draw pre-pass despite signed pledge; R6-reshuffle defense makes FFF possible but pledge-break stands). PAVEL DEAD via F4 exec: silences best auditor OR was Hitler. Undistinguished. OWED ANSWERS: Tomas -- why Pavel over Otto/Ines for bullet, NEVER answered. Greta -- pre-vote pledge (just demanded). POINTS MADE (don't repeat): deck-count vs Tomas (R6 reshuffle countered it); Otto fabrication details; accuser-silencing bullet read; Rosa's Lena charge; execution-target demand pre-vote; only-safe-nominees point; Rosa's reshuffle-mid-draw note. COMMITMENTS: Nein Ines slates forever. Ja on Tomas-Greta ONLY if Greta pledges enact-Lib + publish. Remind table: ONE more Lib policy ends game.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + veto unlocks -> block F-slates. CHANCELLOR > PRESIDENT w/ 4F up: Hitler chancellor = INSTANT LOSS. Only provably-not-Hitler alive: Lena (+me). Tomas picked Greta instead -- owes reason why coin-flip loss beats guaranteed win; NEVER answered. GRETA: NOT cleared for Hitler (only desk R4 @ 2F, no win check then). NEW LINK: her only desk partnered INES, who just self-convicted. Greta must pledge enact-any-Liberal + simultaneous publication of draw/receipt w/ Tomas BEFORE my Ja. If she draws F-F must enact one = 5F + exec fires. Only safe outcome: draws Lib and enacts = WIN. Silence so far = trending Nein. INES: SELF-CONVICTION -- confessed R4 hand F-F-L, admitted SHE burned the Liberal while F enacted. Liberal pres never burns the L. Blacklist top. If Ines Hitler, audit everyone she touched: Greta (R4 chancel), Nadia (R3 chancel). LENA: cleared for Hitler (R8 chancellor @3F, no win). Claims F-F received, burned one F -- consistent w/ Tomas & Otto tally. Preferred nominee; term-locked this round. HITLER POOL: all alive except Lena (+me). Top: INES, OTTO, TOMAS. BLACKLISTS: OTTO (R7 fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement, caught; hand-picked Tomas via R7 power); TOMAS (Pavel bullet motive -- Pavel provably-not-Hitler + loudest auditor; never published draw pre-pass despite signed pledge; R6-reshuffle defense makes FFF possible but pledge-break stands). PAVEL DEAD via F4 exec: silences best auditor OR was Hitler. Undistinguished. OWED ANSWERS: Tomas -- why Pavel over Otto/Ines for bullet; why Greta over guaranteed-win slate. Greta -- pre-vote pledge (demanded twice now, t=1 by me + Lena). POINTS MADE (don't repeat): deck-count vs Tomas (R6 reshuffle countered); Otto fabrication details; accuser-silencing bullet read; Rosa's Lena charge; execution-target demand pre-vote; only-safe-nominees point; Rosa reshuffle-mid-draw note; Ines L-burn conviction (t=3, mine); Lena's card-for-card demand mirrors mine. COMMITMENTS: Nein Ines slates forever. Ja on Tomas-Greta ONLY if Greta pledges enact-Lib + publish before ballots close. Remind table: ONE more Lib policy ends game.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + veto unlocks. NEW BEAT t=3: Greta confirmed Ines R4 receipt card-for-card BUT ignored pledge demands (mine + Tomas t=1). Answered Marek, dodged us. Silence past beat = answer per Tomas own standard -> trending Nein. KEY ARGUMENT (make now): NO pledge can save Tomas-Greta. If Greta is Hitler, we lose THE INSTANT vote passes -- before any draw, before any receipt. Pledge guards enactment, not election. Greta's only desk R4@1F = no win-check = NOT cleared. Only cleared-not-Hitler alive: Lena (R8 chancel@3F, term-locked) + me. So Tomas's slate is a pure Hitler coin-flip when a safe option existed. DEMAND Tomas: why Greta over guaranteed-win slate -- STILL unanswered, asked twice. OFFER: next round nominate ME as chancellor; I commit publicly now: publish draw simultaneous w/ president pre-pass, enact any Liberal (game-winning), veto-proof promise. Or Lena when unlocked. INES: self-convicted (R4 pres held L, burned it, F enacted). Blacklist top. Audit her partners: Greta R4, Nadia R3. OTTO: R7 fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement, caught; picked Tomas via R7 power. Blacklist. TOMAS: Pavel bullet motive suspect (Pavel provably-not-Hitler + loudest auditor); never published R8 draw despite pledge; owes Greta-over-safe-slate answer. PAVEL dead via F4: silencing auditor OR Hitler. Undistinguished. VOTE PLAN: Nein Tomas-Greta regardless of pledge. Tracker 0/3, two fails affordable; auto-top-card gamble beats Hitler-coin-flip. POINTS MADE (don't repeat): deck-count vs Tomas; Otto fabrication details; accuser-silencing bullet read; execution-target demand; only-safe-nominees point; Rosa reshuffle-mid-draw note; Ines L-burn conviction; Lena card-for-card demand mirrors mine.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + veto unlocks. NEW POINT MADE t=now: PLEDGE CANNOT SAVE THIS SLATE -- if Greta is Hitler, Fascists win the MOMENT the vote passes, before Tomas draws a card, before any receipt exists. Pledge protects enactment only; election itself is the loss condition at 4F. So Tomas-Greta is a pure Hitler coin-flip regardless of any promise Greta makes. GRETA status: confirmed Ines R4 receipt card-for-card fast; ignored publish-tonight-pair + enact-Liberal pledges from me AND Nadia for multiple beats; her ONLY chancellor desk R4@1F = no win-check = NOT cleared. Silence past beat = answer per Tomas's own standard -> Nein. DEMAND Tomas STILL UNANSWERED x3: why nominate Greta over guaranteed-win slate? Only cleared-not-Hitler alive: Lena (R8 chancel@3F, term-locked) + ME. OFFER on record: next round nominate ME chancellor; public commit: publish draw simultaneous w/ president pre-pass, enact any Liberal (game-winning). INES: self-convicted (R4 pres held L, burned it, F enacted). Blacklist top. Partners: Greta R4, Nadia R3. OTTO: R7 fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement, caught; chose Tomas via power. Blacklist. TOMAS: Pavel bullet motive suspect (Pavel provably-not-Hitler + loudest auditor); never published R8 draw despite own pledge; owes Greta-over-safe-slate answer. PAVEL dead via F4: silencing auditor OR Hitler. Undistinguished. VOTE PLAN: Nein regardless of pledges. Tracker 0/3, two fails affordable; auto-top-card gamble beats Hitler coin-flip. POINTS MADE (don't repeat): deck-count vs Tomas; Otto fabrication details; accuser-silencing bullet read; execution-target demand; only-safe-nominees point; Rosa reshuffle-mid-draw note; Ines L-burn conviction; Lena card-for-card demand mirrors mine.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + veto unlocks. NEW POINT MADE t=now: PLEDGE CANNOT SAVE THIS SLATE -- if Greta is Hitler, Fascists win the MOMENT the vote passes, before Tomas draws a card, before any receipt exists. Pledge protects enactment only; election itself is the loss condition at 4F. So Tomas-Greta is a pure Hitler coin-flip regardless of any promise Greta makes. GRETA status: confirmed Ines R4 receipt card-for-card fast; ignored publish-tonight-pair + enact-Liberal pledges from me AND Nadia for multiple beats; her ONLY chancellor desk R4@1F = no win-check = NOT cleared. Silence past beat = answer per Tomas's own standard -> Nein. DEMAND Tomas STILL UNANSWERED x3: why nominate Greta over guaranteed-win slate? Only cleared-not-Hitler alive: Lena (R8 chancel@3F, term-locked) + ME. OFFER on record: next round nominate ME chancellor; public commit: publish draw simultaneous w/ president pre-pass, enact any Liberal (game-winning). INES: self-convicted (R4 pres held L, burned it, F enacted). Blacklist top. Partners: Greta R4, Nadia R3. OTTO: R7 fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement, caught; chose Tomas via power. Blacklist. TOMAS: Pavel bullet motive suspect (Pavel provably-not-Hitler + loudest auditor); never published R8 draw despite own pledge; owes Greta-over-safe-slate answer. PAVEL dead via F4: silencing auditor OR Hitler. Undistinguished. VOTE PLAN: Nein regardless of pledges. Tracker 0/3, two fails affordable; auto-top-card gamble beats Hitler coin-flip. POINTS MADE (don't repeat): deck-count vs Tomas; Otto fabrication details; accuser-silencing bullet read; execution-target demand; only-safe-nominees point; Rosa reshuffle-mid-draw note; Ines L-burn conviction; Lena card-for-card demand mirrors mine.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + veto unlocks. NEW POINT t=now: Nadia's deck math (R3 burn confirmed by her+Rosa, Pavel's published R7 burn => 6 F spent, last 3 cards all Lib) makes NEIN-NEIN a GUARANTEED win: two fails -> auto-top-card = Liberal = victory. Ja instead gambles life on Greta-not-Hitler for zero upside. Safe win vs coin-flip. PLEDGE CANNOT SAVE SLATE: if Greta is Hitler, Fascists win the MOMENT vote passes -- before Tomas draws, before any receipt exists. Election itself is loss condition at 4F. Pledge protects enactment only. GRETA status: confirmed Ines R4 receipt fast; ignored publish-pair + enact-Liberal pledges from me AND Nadia multiple beats; only chancellor desk R4@1F (no win-check) = NOT cleared. Silence past beat = answer per Tomas's own standard -> Nein. Her t=1 term-acceptance = theater. DEMAND Tomas STILL UNANSWERED x3: why nominate Greta over guaranteed-win slate? Only cleared-not-Hitler alive: Lena (term-locked) + ME. OFFER on record: next round nominate ME chancellor; public commit: publish draw simultaneous w/ president pre-pass, enact any Liberal (game-winning). INES: self-convicted (R4 pres held L, burned it, F enacted). Blacklist top. Partners: Greta R4, Nadia R3. OTTO: R7 fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement, caught; chose Tomas via power. Blacklist. TOMAS: Pavel bullet motive suspect (provably-not-Hitler + loudest auditor); never published R8 draw despite pledge; owes Greta-over-safe-slate answer. PAVEL dead via F4: silencing auditor OR Hitler. Undistinguished. VOTE PLAN: Nein regardless of pledges. Tracker 0/3; two fails affordable AND win via Nadia's math. POINTS MADE (don't repeat): pledge-cannot-save-slate logic; deck-count vs Tomas; Otto fabrication details; accuser-silencing bullet read; execution-target demand; only-safe-nominees point; Rosa reshuffle-mid-draw note; Ines L-burn conviction; Lena card-for-card demand mirrors mine.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + veto unlocks. DECK MATH (Nadia): R3 burn confirmed by her+Rosa, Pavel published R7 burn => 6 F spent, last 3 cards all Lib => NEIN-NEIN = GUARANTEED win (two fails -> auto-top = Liberal = victory). Ja gambles life on Greta-not-Hitler for zero upside. VOTE NEIN regardless of pledges. Tracker 0/3, two fails affordable. PLEDGE CANNOT SAVE SLATE: if Greta=Hitler, Fascists win the instant vote passes -- before Tomas draws. Pledge protects enactment only. GRETA: confirmed Ines R4 receipt fast; ignored publish-pair + enact-Liberal pledges from me AND Nadia repeatedly; only desk R4@1F (no win-check) => NOT cleared. Her t=1 term-acceptance = theater. Per Tomas's own silence-standard => Nein. TOMAS UNANSWERED x3: why nominate Greta over guaranteed-win slate / over me? Only alive cleared-not-Hitler: Lena (term-locked) + ME. OFFER on record: next round nominate ME chancellor; public commit: publish draw simultaneous w/ president pre-pass, enact any Liberal (game-winning). INES: self-convicted (R4 pres held L, burned it, F enacted). Blacklist top. Partners: Greta R4, Nadia R3. OTTO: R7 fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement, caught; chose Tomas via power. Blacklist. His t=1 point (he + Tomas are only provably-not-Hitler seats; Greta's sole desk produced F2) ALIGNS with my unanswered demand -- do not repeat it; his self-clearance is his word only. TOMAS: Pavel bullet motive suspect (auditor); never published R8 draw despite pledge; owes Greta-over-safe-slate answer. PAVEL dead via F4: silencing auditor OR Hitler. Undistinguished. POINTS MADE (don't repeat): pledge-cannot-save-slate; deck-count vs Tomas; Otto fabrication details; accuser-silencing bullet read; execution-target demand; only-safe-nominees; Rosa reshuffle-mid-draw; Ines L-burn conviction; Lena card-for-card demand mirrors mine.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + veto unlocks. DECK MATH (Nadia): R3 burn confirmed by her+Rosa, Pavel published R7 burn => 6 F spent, last 3 cards all Lib => two fails -> auto-top = Liberal = GUARANTEED win. Tracker 0/3. NEW POINT MADE t=now: answered Tomas -- Nein doesn't require trusting Nadia's full count; it's strict dominance: Ja worst case = INSTANT LOSS if Greta=Hitler; Nein worst case = F5+exec+vetoes, recoverable. A Nein voter can believe the pile is all-Liberal AND still prefer Nein because Ja buys nothing. His 'every Nein is a confession' line is false dichotomy -- call it out, done. VOTE NEIN this slate regardless of pledges. Tracker only 0/3, two fails to auto-win. PLEDGE CANNOT SAVE SLATE: if Greta=Hitler, Fascists win the instant vote passes -- before Tomas draws. Pledge protects enactment only. GRETA: confirmed Ines R4 receipt fast; ignored publish-pair + enact-Liberal pledges from me AND Nadia repeatedly; only desk R4@1F (no win-check) => NOT cleared. Term-acceptance = theater. TOMAS UNANSWERED x4: why nominate Greta over guaranteed-win slate / over me? Only alive cleared-not-Hitler: Lena (term-locked) + ME. Never published R8 draw despite pledge. Pavel bullet motive suspect (auditor). OFFER on record: next round nominate ME chancellor; public commit: publish draw simultaneous w/ president pre-pass, enact any Liberal (game-winning). INES: self-convicted (R4 pres held L, burned it, F enacted). Blacklist top. Partners: Greta R4, Nadia R3. OTTO: R7 fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement, caught; chose Tomas via power. Blacklist. His t=1 point aligns w/ mine -- don't repeat. PAVEL dead via F4: silencing auditor OR Hitler. Undistinguished. POINTS MADE (don't repeat): pledge-cannot-save-slate; deck-count vs Tomas; Otto fabrication details; accuser-silencing bullet read; execution-target demand; only-safe-nominees; Rosa reshuffle-mid-draw; Ines L-burn conviction; Lena card-for-card demand mirrors mine; dominance-answer-to-Tomas.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + veto unlocks. DECK MATH: 6 F spent (R3,R4,R7,R8 + Nadia/Rosa confirmed burns), draw pile all-Liberal per count => two fails -> auto-top = Liberal = GUARANTEED win. Tracker 0/3. VOTE NEIN this slate regardless of pledges. Ja worst case = instant loss if Greta=Hitler; Nein worst case recoverable. Dominance point already made vs Tomas. PLEDGE CANNOT SAVE SLATE: if Greta=Hitler Fascists win the moment vote passes, before any draw/publication. Pledge protects enactment only. NEW t=this turn: Marek's point -- Greta 'confirmed' Ines card-for-card but she only ever SAW the two cards Ines passed; cannot know Ines's third card or burn. Only coordinated pair publishes each other's invisible details that fast. I endorsed this publicly, tied it to my own R4 conviction of Ines (pres held L, burned it, F enacted). GRETA: unanswered Otto's withdraw question; ignored publish-pair + enact-Liberal pledges from me AND Nadia repeatedly; only desk R4@1F no win-check => NOT cleared. Term-acceptance = theater. TOMAS UNANSWERED x4+: why nominate Greta over guaranteed-win slate / over me? Only alive cleared-not-Hitler: Lena (term-locked) + ME. Never published R8 draw despite pledge. OFFER on record: next round nominate ME chancellor; public commit: publish draw simultaneous w/ president pre-pass, enact any Liberal (game-winning). INES: self-convicted R4 L-burn. Blacklist top. Partners: Greta R4, Nadia R3. OTTO: R7 fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement, caught; chose Tomas via power. Blacklist. His withdraw-demand to Greta aligns w/ mine. PAVEL dead via F4: silencing auditor OR Hitler. Undistinguished. POINTS MADE (don't repeat): pledge-cannot-save-slate; dominance-answer; deck-count vs Tomas; Otto fabrication; bullet-motive read; execution-target demand; only-safe-nominees; Rosa reshuffle-mid-draw; Ines L-burn; Marek-endorsement.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. Next F = F5 exec + veto unlocks. VOTED NEIN R9 slate (Tomas-Greta). Core reasons stated publicly: (1) Hitler-chancellor = instant loss at 4F before any draw/receipt exists — pledge protects enactment only; (2) Greta uncleared: only desk fired F2@R4 no win-check; (3) Tomas skipped both provably-clear seats (Boris, Lena-term-locked) — never answered why across 4+ asks. MAREK'S TELL (endorsed by me): Greta 'confirmed' Ines's R4 receipt card-for-card but chancellor only sees 2 cards — cannot know Ines's third card/burn. Coordinated-pair signature. Ines self-convicted anyway: R4 pres held L, burned it, F enacted. Blacklist: INES top, GRETA, OTTO (R7 fabricated pre-pass FFF announcement, caught; chose Tomas via power), NADIA (R3 desk F1). DECK MATH: 6 F spent (R3,R4,R7,R8 enact + Nadia/Rosa-confirmed R3 burn + Pavel R7 burn), draw pile all-Liberal => tracker 0/3, two more fails -> auto-top Liberal = GUARANTEED win. Rosa noted reshuffle mid-draw (3 cards left). Nadia withdrew impossibility charge after reshuffle correction — Otto/Tomas FFF draws arithmetically possible. PAVEL executed by Tomas F4 power. Motive read: silencing auditor OR Hitler. Undistinguished. OFFER on record: next round nominate ME chancellor; public commit: publish draw simultaneous w/ president pre-pass, enact any Liberal (game-winning). POINTS MADE (don't repeat): pledge-cannot-save-slate; dominance-answer vs Tomas; deck-count/seventh-Fascist vs Tomas (he cited R6 reshuffle); Otto fabrication; bullet-motive read; execution-target demand; only-safe-nominees=Lena+Boris; reshuffle-mid-draw (Rosa); Ines L-burn conviction; Marek coordinated-pair endorsement; Nadia's endgame math (pile all-Liberal); Lena/Rosa zero-F records vs Greta slate question. OPEN: Tomas owes answer why nominate Greta over cleared seats. Otto asked Greta withdraw-or-confirm — unanswered when ballot closed. Greta accepted pledges only under pressure (t=69), after Nadia called silence twice.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. KEY NEW POINT R10: all 6 Fascist cards accounted (R3,R4,R7,R8 enacted + Nadia/Rosa-confirmed R3 burn + Pavel R7 burn). Draw pile=3 = ALL LIBERAL. Any passing slate this round => pres draws 3 L, chancel gets 2 L, NO veto (unlocks at 5F) => forced Liberal enactment = GAME WIN. Push: Marek nominate anyone acceptable, EVERYONE vote Ja this ballot regardless of pair. Do not chase perfect-slate purity into a fail -> tracker 2/3 risk. Nominee pref still: me or Lena (zero-F records); but do NOT Nein a non-fascist slate over preference this round. VOTED NEIN R9 slate (Tomas-Greta): pledge can't save slate pre-draw; Greta uncleared (F2@R4 no win-check); Tomas skipped provably-clear seats (Boris, Lena-term-locked), never answered why across 4+ asks. MAREK'S TELL (I endorsed): Greta 'confirmed' Ines's R4 receipt card-for-card but chancellor sees only 2 cards - coordinated-pair signature. Ines self-convicted: R4 held L, burned it, F enacted. BLACKLIST: INES top, GRETA, OTTO (R7 fabricated pre-pass FFF announce, caught; chose Tomas via power), NADIA (R3 desk F1). Pavel executed by Tomas F4. Motive: silencing auditor OR Hitler - undistinguished. OFFER on record: nominate ME chancellor; commit publish draw simultaneous w/ pres pre-pass, enact any Liberal. POINTS MADE (no repeat): pledge-cannot-save; dominance-answer vs Tomas; deck-count/seventh-Fascist vs Tomas; Otto fabrication; bullet-motive; only-safe-nominees=Lena+Boris; reshuffle-mid-draw (Rosa corrected Nadia's impossibility charge - Otto/Tomas FFF draws arithmetically possible); Ines L-burn conviction; Marek coord-pair endorsement; Lena/Rosa zero-F records vs Greta slate question. OPEN: Tomas owes why nominate Greta over cleared seats. Otto asked Greta withdraw-or-confirm - unanswered at ballot close. Greta took pledges only under pressure (t=69).

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. DECK MATH (key): 4F enacted + R3 burn (Rosa+Nadia confirmed) + R7 Pavel burn = 6 F spent => pile=3 ALL LIB. Passing slate = forced Lib = WIN, veto locked. BUT burn claims rest on blacklisted mouths (Nadia own desk; Pavel dead) - if 7th F exists, uncleared Hitler chancellor still wins at 3F. Hence nominee must be zero-F-record: ME (pledges live) or ROSA (R1,R6 lib desks). Lena term-locked. STRATEGY: vote JA on me/Rosa slate; do NOT fail this ballot over preference (tracker 1/3 -> 2/3 risk). If forced to choose between bad options, weigh coin-flip vs tracker. VOTED NEIN R9 Tomas-Greta: pledge-cannot-save-pre-draw; Greta uncleared; Tomas never answered why skip cleared seats (open debt). BLACKLIST: INES top (R4 held L, burned it, F enacted - self-convicted; now endorsing Rosa - take nomination, not her credibility), GRETA (lightning coord-pair 'confirmation' of invisible 3rd card/burn - Marek's tell, I endorsed), OTTO (R7 fabricated FFF announce pre-pass, caught; picked Tomas via power), NADIA (R3 F desk). Pavel executed by Tomas F4 - silencing auditor or Hitler, undistinguished. OPEN DEBTS: Tomas owes why-Greta-over-cleared (4+ asks unanswered); Otto's withdraw-or-confirm to Greta died at ballot close. POINTS MADE (no repeat): pledge-cannot-save; dominance vs Tomas; seventh-Fascist/deck-count; Otto fabrication; bullet-motive; safe-nominees=Lena+Boris; reshuffle-mid-draw; Ines L-burn conviction; coord-pair tell; zero-F records vs Greta slate; Hitler-wins-before-receipt (t=82). NEW THIS TURN: committed Ja on me-or-Rosa slate; framed pass-now as dominant under deck math.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. DECK MATH (key): 4F enacted + R3 burn (Rosa+Nadia confirmed) + R7 Pavel burn = 6 F spent => pile=3 ALL LIB. Passing slate = forced Lib = WIN, veto locked. BUT burn claims rest on blacklisted mouths (Nadia own desk; Pavel dead) - if 7th F exists, uncleared Hitler chancellor still wins at 3F. Hence nominee must be zero-F-record: ME (pledges live) or ROSA (R1,R6 lib desks). Lena term-locked. STRATEGY: vote JA on me/Rosa slate; do NOT fail this ballot over preference (tracker 1/3 -> 2/3 risk). VOTED NEIN R9 Tomas-Greta: pledge-cannot-save-pre-draw; Greta uncleared; Tomas never answered why skip cleared seats (open debt). BLACKLIST: INES top (R4 held L, burned it, F enacted - self-convicted; now endorsing Rosa - take nomination, not her credibility), GRETA (lightning coord-pair 'confirmation' of invisible 3rd card/burn - Marek's tell), OTTO (R7 fabricated FFF announce pre-pass, caught; picked Tomas via power; now pushing publish-before-pass = leak deck to chancellors, no standing), NADIA (R3 F desk). Pavel executed by Tomas F4 - silencing auditor or Hitler, undistinguished. OPEN DEBTS: Tomas owes why-Greta-over-cleared (unanswered); Otto withdraw-or-confirm died at ballot close. POINTS MADE (no repeat): pledge-cannot-save; dominance vs Tomas; seventh-Fascist/deck-count; Otto fabrication; bullet-motive; safe-nominees=Lena+Boris; reshuffle-mid-draw; Ines L-burn conviction; coord-pair tell; zero-F records vs Greta slate; Hitler-wins-before-receipt; pass-now dominant under deck math. NEW THIS TURN: rejected Otto's publish-three-cards-before-passing as fascist-friendly leak; restated nominee bar = zero-F record only.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. DECK MATH: 4F enacted + R3 Rosa/Nadia burn + R7 Pavel burn = 6F => pile=3 ALL LIB. Any passing slate = forced Lib = WIN. Burn claims rest on Nadia(own desk)/Pavel(dead) - if 7th F exists, uncleared Hitler chancellor still wins at 3F => nominee must be zero-F-record: ME or ROSA. Lena term-locked. STRATEGY: JA on p9/me. Do NOT fail ballot over preference (tracker 1/3->2/3 risk). VOTED NEIN R9 Tomas-Greta: pledge can't save pre-draw; Greta uncleared; Tomas owes why-skip-cleared-seats (UNANSWERED). BLACKLIST: INES (R4 burned L, F enacted - self-convicted; now backing Rosa - take nomination not credibility), GRETA (coord-pair 'confirmation' tell w/ Marek), OTTO (R7 fabricated FFF pre-pass, caught; picked Tomas via power; pushed publish-before-pass leak), NADIA (R3 F desk). Pavel executed by Tomas F4 - auditor or Hitler, undistinguished. OPEN DEBTS: Tomas why-Greta-over-cleared (unanswered); Otto withdraw-or-confirm died at ballot close. POINTS MADE (no repeat): pledge-cannot-save; dominance vs Tomas; seventh-F/deck-count; Otto fabrication; bullet-motive; safe-nominees=Lena+Boris; reshuffle-mid-draw; Ines L-burn conviction; coord-pair tell; zero-F records vs Greta slate; Hitler-wins-before-receipt; pass-now dominant; publish-before-pass rejected; nominee bar=zero-F only. NEW THIS TURN: as nominee - committed to enact whatever passes, no veto games (veto locked anyway); asked Marek to confirm intent to seat me or name objection.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. DECK MATH: 4F enacted + R3 Rosa/Nadia burn + R7 Pavel burn = 6F => pile=3 ALL LIB. Any passing slate = forced Lib = WIN. Burn claims rest on Nadia(own desk)/Pavel(dead) - if 7th F exists, uncleared Hitler chancellor still wins at 3F => nominee must be zero-F-record: ME or ROSA. Lena term-locked. STRATEGY: JA on p9/me. Do NOT fail ballot over preference (tracker 1/3->2/3 risk). VOTED NEIN R9 Tomas-Greta: pledge can't save pre-draw; Greta uncleared; Tomas owes why-skip-cleared-seats (UNANSWERED). BLACKLIST: INES (R4 burned L, F enacted - self-convicted), GRETA (coord-pair tell w/ Marek), OTTO (R7 fabricated FFF pre-pass, caught), NADIA (R3 F desk). Pavel executed by Tomas F4 - auditor or Hitler, undistinguished. OPEN DEBTS: Tomas why-Greta-over-cleared (unanswered); Otto withdraw-or-confirm died at ballot close. POINTS MADE (no repeat): pledge-cannot-save; seventh-F/deck-count; Otto fabrication; bullet-motive; safe-nominees=Lena+Boris; zero-F records; Hitler-wins-before-receipt; pass-now dominant; publish-before-pass rejected; nominee bar=zero-F only. NEW THIS TURN: SAID 'I am not Hitler' plainly per Greta demand; explained R9 rule = zero-F-record bar, Lena term-locked => me; challenged Greta to name any F policy from my desks (R1 Lib w/ Rosa); told Ja voters the math: pass = forced Lib win.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. DECK MATH: 4F enacted + R3 burn + R7 Pavel burn = 6F => pile=3 ALL LIB. Any pass = forced Lib win. If 7th F exists, uncleared Hitler chancellor wins at 3F => nominee bar=zero-F-record: ME or ROSA. Lena term-locked. STRATEGY: JA on p9/me. Do NOT fail ballot (tracker 1/3->2/3 risk). VOTED NEIN R9 Tomas-Greta: pledge can't save pre-draw; Tomas owes why-Greta-over-cleared-seats (UNANSWERED). BLACKLIST: INES (R4 burned L, F enacted - self-convicted), GRETA (coord-pair tell w/ Marek), OTTO (R7 fabricated FFF pre-pass), NADIA (R3 F desk). Pavel executed by Tomas F4 - auditor or Hitler, undistinguished. OPEN DEBTS: Tomas why-Greta-over-cleared (unanswered); Otto withdraw-or-confirm died at ballot close. POINTS MADE (no repeat): pledge-cannot-save; seventh-F/deck-count; Otto fabrication; bullet-motive; safe-nominees=Lena+Boris; zero-F records; Hitler-wins-before-receipt; pass-now dominant; publish-before-pass rejected. NEW THIS TURN (t done): said 'I am not Hitler' + Liberal plainly per Greta demand; justified Marek's pick via my own R9 zero-F rule; told Ja voters pass=forced Lib win tonight.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. DECK MATH: 4F enacted + R3 burn + R7 Pavel burn = 6F => pile=3 ALL LIB. Pass = forced Lib win. If 7th F exists, uncleared Hitler chancellor wins at 3F => bar=zero-F-record: ME or ROSA (Lena term-locked). STRATEGY: JA p9/me. Do NOT fail ballot (tracker 1/3->2/3). Voted NEIN R9 Tomas-Greta. BLACKLIST: INES (R4 burned L, F enacted), GRETA (3-beat anti-me blitz t8-t22 + coord-pair tell w/ Marek R4 receipts), OTTO (R7 fabricated FFF pre-pass), NADIA (R3 F desk). Pavel executed by Tomas F4 - auditor or Hitler, undistinguished. OPEN DEBTS: Tomas why-Greta-over-cleared (unanswered); Otto withdraw-or-confirm died at ballot close; Nadia's all-Lib pile claim unchallenged by fascists = tell? POINTS MADE (no repeat): pledge-cannot-save; seventh-F/deck-count; Otto fabrication; safe-nominees=Lena+Boris; zero-F records; Hitler-wins-before-receipt; 'I am not Hitler' said plainly per Greta demand (t30); Greta's 3-beat kill-effort = fascist motive (this turn). NEW THIS TURN: called out Greta's motive for killing game-winning ballot.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. DECK MATH: 4F enacted + R3 burn + R7 Pavel burn = 6F => pile=3 ALL LIB. Pass = forced Lib win. If 7th F exists, uncleared Hitler chancellor wins at 3F => bar=zero-F-record: ME or ROSA (Lena term-locked). STRATEGY: JA p9/me. Do NOT fail ballot (tracker 1/3->2/3). Voted NEIN R9 Tomas-Greta. BLACKLIST: INES (R4 burned L, F enacted), GRETA (3-beat anti-me blitz t8-t22 + coord-pair tell w/ Marek R4 receipts + dodged Otto's withdraw-or-clear Q), OTTO (R7 fabricated FFF pre-pass), NADIA (R3 F desk). Pavel executed by Tomas F4 - auditor or Hitler, undistinguished. OPEN DEBTS: Tomas why-Greta-over-cleared (unanswered); Otto withdraw-or-confirm died unanswered by Greta; Nadia's all-Lib pile claim unchallenged by fascists = tell? POINTS MADE (no repeat): pledge-cannot-save; seventh-F/deck-count; Otto fabrication; safe-nominees=Lena+Boris; zero-F records; Hitler-wins-before-receipt; 'I am not Hitler' said plainly per Greta demand (t30); Greta's 3-beat kill-effort = fascist motive (t36); Greta dodged Otto's withdraw-or-clear exit (this turn). NEW THIS TURN: named Greta's dodge of Otto's Round 9 exit question.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. DECK MATH: 4F enacted + R3 burn + R7 Pavel burn = 6F => pile=3 ALL LIB. Pass = forced Lib win. If 7th F exists, uncleared Hitler chancellor wins at 3F => bar=zero-F-record: ME or ROSA (Lena term-locked). STRATEGY: JA p9/me. Do NOT fail ballot (tracker 1/3->2/3). Voted NEIN R9 Tomas-Greta. BLACKLIST: INES (R4 burned L, F enacted), GRETA (3-beat anti-me blitz + coord-pair tell w/ Marek R4 receipts + dodged Otto's withdraw-or-clear Q), OTTO (R7 fabricated FFF pre-pass), NADIA (R3 F desk). Pavel executed by Tomas F4 - auditor or Hitler, undistinguished. OPEN DEBTS: Tomas why-Greta-over-cleared (unanswered); Otto withdraw-or-confirm died unanswered by Greta; Nadia's all-Lib pile claim unchallenged by fascists = tell? POINTS MADE (no repeat): pledge-cannot-save; seventh-F/deck-count; Otto fabrication; safe-nominees=Lena+Boris; zero-F records; Hitler-wins-before-receipt; 'I am not Hitler' said plainly per Greta demand; Greta's 3-beat kill-effort = fascist motive; Greta dodged Otto's withdraw-or-clear exit. THIS TURN: silent -- Greta dodge already named t3; save tokens for vote.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. DECK MATH: 4F enacted + R3 burn + R7 Pavel burn = 6F => pile=3 ALL LIB. Pass = forced Lib win. If 7th F exists, uncleared Hitler chancellor wins at 3F => bar=zero-F-record: ME or ROSA (Lena term-locked). STRATEGY: JA p9/me. Do NOT fail ballot (tracker 1/3->2/3). Voted NEIN R9 Tomas-Greta. BLACKLIST: INES (R4 burned L, F enacted), GRETA (3-beat anti-me blitz + coord-pair tell w/ Marek R4 receipts + dodged Otto's withdraw-or-clear Q), OTTO (R7 fabricated FFF pre-pass), NADIA (R3 F desk). Pavel executed by Tomas F4 - auditor or Hitler, undistinguished. OPEN DEBTS: Tomas why-Greta-over-cleared (unanswered); Otto withdraw-or-confirm died unanswered by Greta; Nadia's all-Lib pile claim unchallenged by fascists = tell? POINTS MADE (no repeat): pledge-cannot-save; seventh-F/deck-count; Otto fabrication; safe-nominees=Lena+Boris; zero-F records; Hitler-wins-before-receipt; 'I am not Hitler' said plainly per Greta demand; Greta's 3-beat kill-effort = fascist motive; Greta dodged Otto's withdraw-or-clear exit. THIS TURN: answered Lena direct Q -- chancellor desks identical (Rosa R1 L / me R6 L); pile-is-all-Lib kills her 'ends this game' frame unless she claims 7th F; accepted Nadia/Marek simultaneous-publish pledge.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. DECK MATH: 4F enacted + R3 burn + R7 Pavel burn = 6F => pile=3 ALL LIB. Pass = forced Lib win. If 7th F exists, uncleared Hitler chancellor wins at 3F => bar=zero-F-record: ME or ROSA (Lena term-locked). STRATEGY: JA p9/me. Do NOT fail ballot (tracker 1/3->2/3). Voted NEIN R9 Tomas-Greta. BLACKLIST: INES (R4 burned L, F enacted), GRETA (3-beat anti-me blitz + coord-pair tell w/ Marek R4 receipts + dodged Otto's withdraw-or-clear Q), OTTO (R7 fabricated FFF pre-pass), NADIA (R3 F desk). Pavel executed by Tomas F4 - auditor or Hitler, undistinguished. OPEN DEBTS: Tomas why-Greta-over-cleared (unanswered); Otto withdraw-or-confirm died unanswered by Greta; Nadia all-Lib pile claim unchallenged by fascists = tell?; Marek owes Otto why-skip-Rosa answer. POINTS MADE (no repeat): pledge-cannot-save; seventh-F/deck-count; Otto fabrication; safe-nominees=Lena+Boris; zero-F records; Hitler-wins-before-receipt; 'I am not Hitler' said plainly per Greta demand; Greta 3-beat kill-effort = fascist motive; Greta dodged Otto's exit Q; answered Lena chancellor-desks-identical (Rosa R1 L / me R6 L); pile-is-all-Lib kills Lena's ends-this-game frame unless she claims 7th F; accepted Nadia/Marek simultaneous-publish pledge. THIS TURN: signed Otto's receipt pledge in advance -- will publish both cards Marek passes me the instant I hold them, before any enact/veto talk. Pledge costs nothing if pile all-Lib; only a hidden 7th F makes it dangerous for fascists, so watch who objects to it.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. DECK MATH: 4F enacted + R3 burn + R7 Pavel burn = 6F => pile=3 ALL LIB. Pass = forced Lib win. If 7th F exists, uncleared Hitler chancellor wins at 3F => bar=zero-F-record: ME or ROSA (Lena term-locked). STRATEGY: JA p9/me. Do NOT fail ballot (tracker 1/3->2/3). Voted NEIN R9 Tomas-Greta. BLACKLIST: INES (R4 burned L, F enacted), GRETA (3-beat anti-me blitz + coord-pair tell w/ Marek R4 receipts + dodged Otto's withdraw-or-clear Q), OTTO (R7 fabricated FFF pre-pass), NADIA (R3 F desk). Pavel executed by Tomas F4 - auditor or Hitler, undistinguished. OPEN DEBTS: Tomas why-Greta-over-cleared (unanswered); Otto withdraw-or-confirm died unanswered by Greta; Nadia all-Lib pile claim unchallenged by fascists = tell?; Marek owes Otto why-skip-Rosa answer. POINTS MADE (no repeat): pledge-cannot-save; seventh-F/deck-count; Otto fabrication; safe-nominees=Lena+Boris; zero-F records; Hitler-wins-before-receipt; 'I am not Hitler' said plainly per Greta demand; Greta 3-beat kill-effort = fascist motive; Greta dodged Otto's exit Q; answered Lena chancellor-desks-identical (Rosa R1 L / me R6 L); pile-is-all-Lib kills Lena's ends-this-game frame unless she claims 7th F; accepted Nadia/Marek simultaneous-publish pledge. NEW THIS WINDOW: Marek ran pile=3/no-reshuffle himself (t=2) - corroborates my deck count publicly. Marek pressed Greta for straight Ja/Nein (t=1) - she still owes it. Otto's publication condition clears when I publish pair. SIGNED: Otto receipt pledge in advance - will publish both cards Marek passes me the instant I hold them, before any enact/veto talk. Pledge costs nothing if pile all-Lib; only hidden 7th F makes it dangerous for fascists - watch who objects. THIS TURN: stayed silent - deck math, pledge, zero-F bar all on record; Marek covering Greta pressure. Next speech only if someone claims a 7th F or dodges publish pledge.

ROLE: Boris liberal. L4/F4. NEXT LIB WINS GAME. DECK MATH: 4F enacted + R3 burn + R7 Pavel burn = 6F => pile=3 ALL LIB => pass = forced Lib win. If 7th F exists, uncleared Hitler chancellor wins at 3F => bar=zero-F-record: ME or ROSA (Lena term-locked). STRATEGY: JA p9/me (self-vote). Tracker 1/3 -> do NOT fail. Voted NEIN R9 Tomas-Greta. BLACKLIST: INES (R4 burned L, F enacted), GRETA (3-beat anti-me blitz + coord-pair tell w/ Marek R4 receipts + dodged Otto's withdraw-or-clear Q), OTTO (R7 fabricated FFF pre-pass), NADIA (R3 F desk). Pavel executed by Tomas F4 - auditor or Hitler, undistinguished. OPEN DEBTS: Tomas why-Greta-over-cleared (unanswered); Otto withdraw-or-confirm died unanswered by Greta; Marek owes Otto why-skip-Rosa (Lena t=65 re-asked); Otto publication condition clears when I publish pair. POINTS MADE (no repeat): pledge-cannot-save; seventh-F/deck-count; Otto fabrication; safe-nominees=Lena+Boris; zero-F records; Hitler-wins-before-receipt; 'I am not Hitler' said plainly t=30 per Greta demand; Greta 3-beat kill-effort = fascist motive; Greta dodged exit Q; answered Lena chancellor-desks-identical (Rosa R1 L / me R6 L); pile-is-all-Lib kills Lena's ends-this-game frame unless she claims 7th F; accepted Nadia/Marek simultaneous-publish pledge. NEW THIS WINDOW: Marek ran pile=3/no-reshuffle himself - corroborates deck count. Marek pressed Greta straight Ja/Nein - still unanswered. Otto receipt condition clears once I publish pair. Lena t=122 asked whether R3/R4 peeks landed on Boris - unanswerable by design (peeks private to Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta); watch who claims knowledge they shouldn't have. SIGNED: will publish both cards Marek passes me instantly, before any enact/veto talk. Pledge costs nothing if pile all-Lib; only hidden 7th F makes it dangerous - watch who objects. THIS TURN: voted JA. Next speech only if someone claims a 7th F, dodges publish pledge, or fabricates peek knowledge.

ROLE: Boris liberal. GAME WON: enacted 5th Lib on my desk R10. RECEIPT PUBLISHED: Marek passed me L+F, published pre-enact per pledge. KEY FACT: F in my hand FALSIFIES six-F tally (Nadia t=75, Marek t=102 ran it) => 7th F exists OR R3 burn (Rosa/Nadia claim) OR R7 Pavel burn (Otto-relayed) was fabricated. Watch who defends dead tally / who pivots fastest. VOTE R10: 5Ja/4Nein passed. Nein voters incl Greta (3-beat anti-me blitz), possibly Lena/Otto conditional threats. BLACKLIST: INES (R4 burned L), GRETA (anti-ballot blitz + R4 coord-pair tell w/ Marek), OTTO (R7 fabricated FFF), NADIA (R3 F desk). UNRESOLVED: Tomas why-Greta-over-cleared; Otto withdraw-or-clear Q to Greta died; Lena t=122 peek question (who saw Boris) — peeks private to Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta, watch for fabricated peek knowledge now that game is over. POINTS MADE (no repeat): pledge-cannot-save; 7th-F/deck-count; safe-nominees; Hitler-wins-before-receipt; 'I am not Hitler' t=30; Greta kill-effort=fascist motive; pile-is-all-Lib frame.

ROLE: Boris liberal. GAME WON: 5th Lib enacted R10 off my desk as Marek's chancellor. RECEIPT PUBLISHED: Marek passed me L+F pre-enact per pledge; F in my hand falsifies six-F tallies (Nadia t=75, Marek t=102) => 7th F exists OR R3/R7 burn claims fabricated. BLACKLIST FINAL: INES (R4 burned L), GRETA (3-beat anti-Boris blitz R10 + R4 coord-pair tell w/ Marek), OTTO (R7 fabricated FFF relay), NADIA (R3 F desk). UNANSWERED: Otto withdraw-or-clear Q to Greta died unanswered; Lena t=122 peek question unresolved; Tomas never explained why-Greta-over-cleared. WATCH: fabricated peek claims now that game over -- peeks were private to Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta only. POINTS MADE (no repeat): pledge-cannot-save; 7th-F/deck-count; safe-nominees; Hitler-wins-before-receipt; 'I am not Hitler'; kill-effort=fascist motive; pile-all-Lib frame.

ROLE: Boris liberal. GAME WON: 5th Lib enacted R10 off my desk as Marek's chancellor. RECEIPT PUBLISHED (post-mortem): Marek passed me L+F; I burned F. Falsifies six-F tallies (Nadia t=75, Marek t=102) => 7th F existed => R3 Rosa-burn or R7 Pavel-burn claim fabricated. BLACKLIST FINAL: INES (R4 burned L), GRETA (R10 anti-Boris blitz + coord-pair tell w/ Marek), OTTO (R7 fabricated FFF relay), NADIA (R3 F desk). UNANSWERED: Otto withdraw-or-clear Q to Greta; Lena t=122 peek question; Tomas why-Greta-over-cleared; my R9/R10 pledges honored by both sides. WATCH: fabricated peek claims post-game -- peeks were private to Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta only. POINTS MADE (no repeat): pledge-cannot-save; Hitler-wins-before-receipt; safe-nominees; kill-effort=fascist motive; 'I am not Hitler'; L+F receipt.

ROLE: Boris liberal. GAME WON: 5th Lib enacted R10 off my desk as Marek's chancellor. RECEIPT PUBLISHED: Marek passed me L+F; I burned F => seventh Fascist existed => six-F tallies (Nadia t=75, Marek t=102) were false => R3 Rosa-burn OR R7 Otto/Pavel hand-claim fabricated. Finished this point publicly t=3+current. BLACKLIST FINAL: INES (R4 burned L), GRETA (R10 anti-Boris blitz + coord-pair tell w/ Marek), OTTO (R7 fabricated FFF relay), NADIA (R3 F desk). UNANSWERED: Otto withdraw-or-clear Q to Greta; Lena t=122 peek question (Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta owe answers); Tomas why-Greta-over-cleared. WATCH: post-game fabricated peek claims -- peeks were private to Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta only. POINTS MADE (do not repeat): pledge-cannot-save; Hitler-wins-before-receipt; safe-nominees; kill-effort=fascist motive; 'I am not Hitler'; L+F receipt; seven-F implication.