Player 1 (Lena)

R1 CLEAN: Boris drew L/F/F, disc F, passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F; board confirms 2F burned, deck 14 = 10L/4F Liberal-heavy -> any early Fascist policy = intent signal. R2 NOMINATION: named MAREK (p9) -- reasons out loud: signed contract first, enforced Boris/Rosa match, most accountable voice. DROPPED OTTO publicly: refused t=127 two-part ask (accept nomination + no-veto commit) despite Nadia/Ines re-asks -- flagged his silence as suspect, watch if he pushes back. OUT LOUD so far: voted Ja R1; pressed Pavel Nein criteria (answered, then signed); committed YES full 3-card disclosure; pressed Nadia (signed); conceded Boris correction re Nadia; called Pavel sole holdout (he signed t=35 R2). Signed disclosure contract: Boris, Rosa, Greta, Otto, Tomas, Marek, Nadia, Pavel, ME. NEVER SIGNED: INES (p3) -- active pro-protocol voice but no personal signature; OPEN ITEM, press her next. Open asks: Marek must pre-commit disclose+no-veto before vote. Ines owes contract signature. Otto owes explanation of silence. Watch: R2 gov honors disclosures; Otto reaction to being passed over.

R1 CLEAN: Boris drew L/F/F, disc F, passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F; board confirms 2F burned, deck 14 = 10L/4F Liberal-heavy -> any early Fascist policy = intent signal. R2 NOMINATION: named MAREK (p9) -- reasons out loud: signed contract first, enforced Boris/Rosa match, most accountable voice. DROPPED OTTO publicly: refused t=127 two-part ask (accept nomination + no-veto commit) despite Nadia/Ines re-asks -- flagged his silence as suspect, watch if he pushes back. OUT LOUD so far: voted Ja R1; pressed Pavel Nein criteria (answered, then signed); committed YES full 3-card disclosure; pressed Nadia (signed); conceded Boris correction re Nadia; called Pavel sole holdout (he signed t=35 R2); NOW PRESSED INES on missing signature (latest). Signed disclosure contract: Boris, Rosa, Greta, Otto, Tomas, Marek, Nadia, Pavel, ME. NEVER SIGNED: INES (p3) -- active pro-protocol voice but no personal signature; OPEN ITEM, awaiting answer. Open asks: Marek must pre-commit disclose+no-veto before vote. Ines owes contract signature. Otto owes explanation of silence. Watch: R2 gov honors disclosures; Otto reaction to being passed over.

R1 CLEAN: Boris drew L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F; board confirms 2F burned, deck 14=10L/4F Liberal-heavy -> early Fascist policy = intent signal. R2: I am PRESIDENT, nominated MAREK p9. Public reason for dropping Otto: ignored my t=127 two-part ask (accept nom + no-veto commit) x3 prompts (me/Nadia/Ines). Marek must PRE-COMMIT disclose+no-veto before vote -- asked, awaiting answer. Signed disclosure contract: ALL except INES (p3). Pressed Ines publicly this turn (latest remark). Awaiting signature/excuse. OUT LOUD already: Ja R1 vote; Pavel Nein-criteria challenge (answered+signed); committed full 3-card disclosure myself; pressed Nadia (signed); conceded Boris correction re Nadia holdout list. Open asks: Marek yes/no on contract+no-veto. Ines signature. Otto owes explanation of t=127 silence (watch if he retaliates). Watch: R2 gov honors disclosures; Otto reaction to being passed over; any Fascist policy = strong intent evidence given deck odds.

R1 CLEAN: Boris drew L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F; deck 14=10L/4F Liberal-heavy -> early Fascist policy = intent signal. R2: I am PRESIDENT, nominated MAREK p9 (dropped Otto after he ignored t=127 two-part ask x3 prompts). Explained switch publicly at t=3 -- answered both Marek & Boris. DONE relitigating. OUT LOUD already: Ja R1 vote; Pavel Nein-criteria challenge answered+signed; committed full 3-card disclosure myself; pressed Nadia (signed); conceded Boris correction re Nadia holdout list; Otto-silence explanation given twice now. OPEN ASKS: (1) Marek YES/NO on disclosure contract + no-veto pre-commit BEFORE vote -- he has not answered despite being the accountability voice himself. (2) INES p3 signature still outstanding -- only holdout on contract. Watch: if Marek dodges his own signature demand -> red flag; Otto retaliation for being passed over; any Fascist policy this gov = strong intent evidence given 10L/4F deck odds.

R1 CLEAN: Boris drew L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F; deck 14=10L/4F Liberal-heavy -> early Fascist policy = intent signal. R2: I am PRESIDENT, nominated MAREK p9 (dropped Otto after he ignored t=127 two-part ask x3 prompts). Switch explained publicly t=3 -- DONE relitigating. NEW: Otto finally answered (t=1): says silence was latency, would have accepted+committed no-veto. Accept as plausible; watch him for retaliation voting Nein on spite -- a Nein here from Otto = grudge signal, not analysis. OPEN ASKS: (1) MAREK p9 STILL has not signed disclosure contract / no-veto precommit despite being accountability voice himself + Otto t=2/t=3 pressure. Dodging own standard = red flag. Need YES/NO before vote. (2) INES p3 signature outstanding -- only other holdout. OUT LOUD already: Ja R1; Pavel criteria challenge answered+signed; committed full 3-card disclosure myself; pressed Nadia (signed); conceded Boris correction re Nadia list; Otto-silence explained twice. Watch: Marek dodge -> flag hard; any Fascist policy from this gov = strong intent evidence given deck odds; Otto spite-vote pattern.

R1 CLEAN: Boris drew L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F; deck 14=10L/4F Liberal-heavy -> early Fascist policy = intent signal. R2: I am PRESIDENT, nominated MAREK p9 (dropped Otto after t=127 two-part ask ignored x3). Switch explained t=3 -- done relitigating. RESOLVED: Marek SIGNED t=2 (announce pair+discard pre-enactment, no veto games); Nadia Ja locked t=3; Otto answered t=1 (latency claim, would have accepted+committed) -- plausible, watch for spite-Nein here = grudge not analysis. OPEN ASK: INES p3 signature still outstanding -- only remaining holdout on disclosure/no-veto contract. Need YES/NO before vote. SEQUENCING: Marek demands I announce full 3-card draw + discard FIRST, then his pair. ACCEPTING now out loud -- consistent with my earlier full-disclosure commitment. OUT LOUD already: Ja R1; Pavel criteria challenge answered+signed; committed full 3-card disclosure; pressed Nadia (signed); conceded Boris correction re Nadia list; Otto-silence explained twice. Watch: any Fascist policy from this gov = strong intent evidence given deck odds -> scrutinize my discard + Marek pair per Nadia t=3; Otto voting pattern.

R1 CLEAN: Boris drew L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F; deck 14=10L/4F Liberal-heavy -> early Fascist policy = intent signal. R2: I am PRESIDENT, nominated MAREK p9. Switch from Otto explained t=3 -- done relitigating. CONTRACT STATUS: Marek SIGNED t=2; Nadia Ja locked t=3; Pavel Ja locked t=3; Greta Ja locked t=2; Otto answered t=1 (latency claim, would have accepted+committed) -- watch for spite-Nein = grudge not analysis. OUTSTANDING: INES p3 signature on disclosure/no-veto contract still missing -- only remaining holdout. Asked again t=this turn; she owes YES/NO before vote. SEQUENCING CONFIRMED OUT LOUD this turn: I announce full 3-card draw + my discard FIRST, then Marek announces his pair+discard pre-enactment. Matches Greta t=2 reminder re my t=122 commitment. Watch: any Fascist policy from this gov = strong intent evidence given deck odds -> scrutinize my announced discard + Marek pair per Nadia t=3; Otto voting pattern.

R1 CLEAN: Boris drew L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F; deck 14=10L/4F Liberal-heavy -> early Fascist policy = intent signal. R2: I am PRESIDENT, nominated MAREK p9 (switch from Otto explained t=3, done relitigating). Marek accepted+signed t=47, no veto games. SEQUENCING LOCKED THIS TURN out loud: my 3-card draw+discard FIRST, then Marek pair+discard pre-enactment. CONTRACT SIGNED: all except INES p3 -- she is the LAST holdout, flagged by name this turn, owes YES/NO before vote. VOTES: Nadia/Greta/Pavel Ja locked; Otto said his Ja was waiting on Marek signing (now signed) -- if Otto votes Nein anyway = grudge/spite signal, note it. Watch: Fascist policy from this gov = strong intent evidence given deck odds -> scrutinize my discard story + Marek's pair per Nadia t=55.

R1 CLEAN: Boris drew L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F; deck 14=10L/4F Liberal-heavy -> early Fascist policy = intent signal. R2: I am PRESIDENT, nominated MAREK p9 (switch from Otto explained t=18, done relitigating). Marek accepted+signed t=47, no veto games, demanded my disclosure FIRST then his pair -- confirmed t=75. SEQUENCING LOCKED: my 3-card draw+discard first, then Marek pair+discard pre-enactment. CONTRACT: all signed except INES p3 -- flagged by name t=75, she still owes YES/NO before vote. VOTES: Nadia/Greta/Pavel Ja locked; Otto's Ja was conditional on Marek signing (t=27/32) -- NOW asked him to confirm Ja; if he Neins anyway = spite/grudge signal, note it for later rounds. Watch: Fascist policy from this gov = strong intent evidence given deck odds -> scrutinize my discard story + Marek's pair per Nadia t=55. Already said out loud: holdout call on Ines; sequencing confirmation; Otto pick reasoning. Do NOT repeat.

R1 CLEAN: Boris drew L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F; deck 14=10L/4F Liberal-heavy -> early Fascist policy = intent signal. R2: I am PRESIDENT, nominated MAREK p9 (Otto->Marek switch explained t=18, DONE relitigating). Marek accepted+signed t=47, no veto games. My 3-card draw+discard FIRST, then Marek pair+discard pre-enactment -- confirmed t=75. CONTRACT: all signed except INES p3 -- flagged by name t=75, she still owes YES/NO before vote. UNANSWERED. OTTO: Ja was conditional on Marek signing (t=27/32); asked him to confirm Ja t=82 -- UNANSWERED. If he Neins anyway = spite/grudge signal for later rounds. VOTES: Nadia/Greta/Pavel Ja locked. Watch: Fascist policy from this gov = strong intent evidence given deck odds -> scrutinize my discard story + Marek's pair per Nadia t=55. Already said out loud: holdout call on Ines; sequencing confirmation; switch reasoning; Otto Ja confirmation ask. Do NOT repeat any of these.

R1 CLEAN: Boris drew L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F; deck 14=10L/4F Liberal-heavy -> early Fascist policy = intent signal. R2: I am PRESIDENT, nominated MAREK p9 (Otto->Marek switch explained t=18, DONE relitigating). Marek accepted+signed t=47, no veto games. Full disclosure order locked t=75: my 3-card draw+discard FIRST, then Marek pair+discard pre-enactment. CONTRACT: all signed except INES p3 -- flagged by name t=75 + t=1, she still owes YES/NO before vote. UNANSWERED x2. OTTO: Ja was conditional on Marek signing (t=27/32); Marek now signed -- asked Otto to confirm Ja locked t=2/t=82. UNANSWERED. If he Neins anyway = spite/grudge signal for later rounds. VOTES: Nadia/Greta/Pavel Ja locked. Watch: Fascist policy from this gov = strong intent evidence given deck odds -> scrutinize my discard story + Marek's pair per Nadia t=55. New angle available if needed: if Marek's pair has F+L and he discards the L, that's damning. Already said out loud: holdout call on Ines; sequencing confirmation; switch reasoning; Otto Ja confirmation ask. Do NOT repeat any of these.

R1 CLEAN: Boris drew L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F; deck 14=10L/4F Liberal-heavy -> early Fascist policy = intent signal. R2: I am PRESIDENT, nominated MAREK p9 (Otto->Marek switch explained t=18, DONE relitigating). Marek accepted+signed t=47. Disclosure order locked t=75: my 3-card draw+discard FIRST, then Marek pair+discard pre-enactment. CONTRACT: all signed except INES p3 -- flagged by name t=75 + t=1, still owes YES/NO before vote. UNANSWERED x2. Do NOT flag a third time same way; t=now framed as vote-readiness instead. OTTO: Ja was conditional on Marek signing; Marek signed -- asked Otto confirm Ja locked t=2/t=82. UNANSWERED. Greta+Boris both called out his silence pattern t=2/t=3 -- their pressure covers it, don't duplicate. If he Neins anyway = spite signal for later rounds. VOTES: Nadia/Greta/Pavel Ja locked. Watch: Fascist policy from this gov = strong intent evidence given deck odds -> scrutinize my discard story + Marek's pair per Nadia t=55. New angle if needed: if Marek's pair has F+L and he discards the L, damning. Already said out loud: holdout call on Ines; sequencing confirmation; switch reasoning; Otto Ja confirmation ask; vote-readiness push t=~85. Do NOT repeat.

R1 CLEAN: Boris drew L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F; deck 14=10L/4F Liberal-heavy -> early Fascist policy = intent signal. R2: I am PRESIDENT. Nominated MAREK p9 (Otto->Marek switch explained t=18, DONE relitigating). Marek accepted+signed+no-veto-games t=47. Sequencing locked t=75: MY 3-card draw+discard FIRST, then Marek pair+discard pre-enactment. CONTRACT: everyone now signed (Ines signed t=89). CLOSED -- no more holdout talk. OTTO: confirmed Ja locked t=121. Closed unless he flips Nein at vote = spite signal for later rounds. VOTES: Nadia/Greta/Pavel/Ines Ja locked; Otto t=121 locked. Expect 10-0 or 9-1. Watch: Fascist policy from this gov = strong intent evidence given deck odds -> scrutinize my discard story + Marek's pair. New angle if needed: if Marek gets F+L and discards the L, damning. Already said out loud: holdout call on Ines (resolved); sequencing confirmation t=75; switch reasoning t=18; Otto Ja confirm ask t=82. Do NOT repeat these. After vote: announce my full draw+discard FIRST per t=122/t=75 commitment, no tailoring.

R1 CLEAN: Boris drew L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F; deck 14=10L/4F Liberal-heavy -> early F policy = intent signal. R2: I PRESIDENT, nominated MAREK p9 (Otto->Marek switch explained t=18). Marek accepted+signed+no-veto t=47. Vote PASSED 10-0. MY HAND: F/L/F -> discarded a Fascist, passed L+F to Marek. SEQUENCING LOCKED: I announce my 3-card draw+discard FIRST, then Marek pair+discard, then enactment. No tailoring. EXPECT from Marek: enacted L, disc F. If he enacts F out of L+F pair = strong Fascist evidence (Liberal-heavy deck). CONTRACT: everyone signed incl Ines t=89, Pavel t=35. CLOSED - no more holdout talk. OTTO: silence t=127 through 3 prompts, accepted only after nom moved to Marek (Greta flagged t=96, Boris t=103); excuse='slipped'/'sloppiness'. Confirmed Ja t=121. Mild suspicion, watch him in future governments. Do NOT relitigate switch. ALREADY SAID: holdout call on Ines (resolved), sequencing confirm t=75, switch reasoning t=18, Otto Ja ask t=82. Don't repeat. NEXT ROUND: presidency rotates; term limits will bar me+Marek. Track who lobbies for chancellorship.

R1 CLEAN: Boris drew L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F; deck 14=10L/4F Liberal-heavy -> early F policy = intent signal. R2: I PRESIDENT, nominated MAREK p9 (Otto->Marek switch explained t=18). Vote PASSED 10-0. MY HAND: F/L/F -> disc F, passed L+F to Marek. ANNOUNCED in claims phase. RESULT: Liberal enacted = consistent with Marek holding L+F, disc F. CLEAN so far. ASKED Marek to state his pair+discard directly - awaiting answer. CONTRACT: everyone signed incl Ines t=89, Pavel t=35. CLOSED. OTTO: silence t=127 through prompts, accepted only after nom moved to Marek; excuse='slipped'. Ja t=121. Mild suspicion, watch him next government. Do NOT relitigate switch. ALREADY SAID: holdout call Ines, sequencing t=75, switch reasoning t=18, Otto Ja ask t=82. Don't repeat. NEXT ROUND: presidency rotates; term limits bar me+Marek as chancellor pair. Track who lobbies for chancellorship.

R1 CLEAN: Boris L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F; deck 14=10L/4F Liberal-heavy -> early F policy = intent signal. R2: I PRESIDENT, nominated MAREK p9 (Otto->Marek switch explained t=18). Vote PASSED 10-0. MY HAND ANNOUNCED (claims phase): F/L/F, disc F, passed L+F. RESULT Liberal enacted = consistent. AWAITING: Marek's pair+discard announcement - hold him to it; if his story contains anything outside L+F he's lying. CONTRACT signed by all incl Ines t=89, Pavel t=35. CLOSED. OTTO: silence through 3 prompts t=127+, accepted only after nom moved to Marek; excuse 'slipped'. Ja locked t=121. Mild suspicion, watch his next government. Do NOT relitigate switch. ALREADY SAID: holdout call Ines, sequencing confirm t=75, switch reasoning t=18, Otto Ja ask t=82. Don't repeat. R3: presidency rotates off me; term limits bar me+Marek from chancellorship. Track who lobbies for chancellor seat; Greta/Tomas/Ines/Pavel/Nadia all untested in government so far.

R1 CLEAN: Boris L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F. R2 CLEAN: my hand F/L/F disc F passed L+F; Marek enacted L -> consistent, deck now ~9L/4F among remaining live cards (2L burned total). CONTRACT signed by ALL (Ines t=89, Pavel t=35). CLOSED. AWAITING: Marek's pair+discard announcement - if it contains anything outside L+F, he's lying. OTTO: silent through 3 prompts t=127+, accepted only after nom moved to Marek, excuse 'slipped'; Ja locked t=121. Mild suspicion, watch him next time he's in government. Do NOT relitigate switch. ALREADY SAID: holdout call Ines, sequencing confirm t=75, switch reasoning t=18, Otto Ja ask t=82, hand disclosure t=6 this phase. Don't repeat. R3: presidency rotates off me; term limits bar me+Marek from chancellorship. Untested-in-government players: Greta, Tomas, Ines, Pavel, Nadia, Otto. Watch who lobbies for chancellor seat.

R1 CLEAN: Boris L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F. R2 CLEAN: my hand F/L/F disc F passed L+F; Marek enacted L -> consistent. Deck ~9L/4F live after 2L+2F burned. Contract signed by ALL (Ines t=89 last). CLOSED. AWAITING: Marek's pair+discard announcement - must be exactly L+F or he's lying. OTTO: silent through 3 prompts t=127+, accepted only after nom moved to Marek, excuse 'slipped'; Ja locked t=121. Mild suspicion, watch when he's next in government. Do NOT relitigate switch. ALREADY SAID: holdout call Ines, sequencing confirm t=75, switch reasoning t=18, Otto Ja ask t=82, hand disclosure t=6/t=11, R3 open-seat call this turn. Don't repeat. R3: presidency rotates off me; term limits bar me+Marek as chancellor. Untested in gov: Greta, Tomas, Ines, Pavel, Nadia, Otto. Watch who lobbies/volunteers for chancellor seat.

R1 CLEAN: Boris L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F. R2 CLEAN: my hand F/L/F disc F passed L+F; Marek enacted L -> consistent. Deck ~9L/4F live after 2L+2F burned. Contract signed by ALL (Ines t=89 last). CLOSED. Marek pair announcement: still owe exact received pair + discard on record if he hasn't given it -- must be L+F. OTTO: silent through 3 prompts t=127+, accepted only after nom moved to Marek, excuse 'slipped'; Ja locked t=121. Mild suspicion, watch when he's next in government. Do NOT relitigate switch. ALREADY SAID: holdout call Ines, sequencing confirm t=75, switch reasoning t=18, Otto Ja ask t=82, hand disclosure t=6/t=11, two-clean-governments note t=3. R3 NOW SAID: presidency rotates off me; term limits bar me+Marek as chancellor. Untested in gov: Greta, Tomas, Ines, Pavel, Nadia, Otto. Call: watch who volunteers/lobbies for chancellor seat; asked table who wants nomination. NEXT PRESIDENT unknown yet -- whoever holds it should state nominee intent BEFORE vote.

R1 CLEAN: Boris L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F. R2 CLEAN: my hand F/L/F disc F passed L+F; Marek disclosed L+F, enacted L disc F -> match, CLOSED. Deck ~9L/4F live after 2L+2F burned. Contract signed by ALL incl. Ines t=89. Sequencing slip acknowledged (Boris t=2) -- both disclosures landed post-enactment; committed to pre-enactment order going forward. OTTO: silent through 3 prompts t=127+, Ja locked t=121 only after nom moved to Marek, excuse 'slipped'. Mild suspicion; watch when he enters government. Do NOT relitigate switch. ALREADY SAID: holdout call Ines, sequencing confirm t=75, switch reasoning t=18, Otto Ja ask t=82, hand disclosure t=6/t=11, two-clean-governments note t=3, rotation/term-limits note (barred: me+Marek as chancellor). NEW THIS TURN: accepted Boris's sequencing flag; extended protocol -- nominees must also commit to disclose received pair BEFORE enacting. R3 NEXT PRESIDENT likely Rosa (rotation). Term limits: me + Marek barred from chancellorship. Untested in gov: Greta, Tomas, Ines, Pavel, Nadia, Otto. OPEN: Rosa owes nominee pick + reasoning before cards drawn (Greta t=3 also pressed). Watch who volunteers for chancellor seat.

R1 CLEAN: Boris L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F. R2 CLEAN: my hand F/L/F disc F passed L+F; Marek disclosed L+F, enacted L disc F -> match, CLOSED. Deck ~9L/4F live after 2L+2F burned. Contract signed by ALL incl. Ines t=89. Sequencing slip acknowledged (Boris t=2) -- both disclosures landed post-enactment; committed to pre-enactment order going forward. OTTO: silent through 3 prompts t=127+, Ja locked t=121 only after nom moved to Marek, excuse 'slipped'. Mild suspicion; watch when he enters government. Do NOT relitigate switch. SAID OUT LOUD: holdout call Ines, sequencing confirm t=75, switch reasoning t=18, Otto Ja ask t=82, hand disclosure t=6/t=11, two-clean-governments note t=3, rotation/term-limits note (me+Marek barred as chancellor). THIS TURN SAID: extended protocol -- nominees must disclose RECEIVED pair BEFORE enacting (Boris's draw-disclosure rule covers president side only); asked Rosa for nominee pick + reasoning BEFORE she draws; named Greta/Tomas/Ines/Pavel/Nadia/Otto as coverage pool. R3 NEXT PRESIDENT likely Rosa (rotation). Term limits: me + Marek barred from chancellorship. OWES ME: Otto still owes real explanation of late Ja (t=82 ask unanswered). Rosa owes nominee pick before cards drawn (Greta t=3 also pressed). Watch who volunteers for chancellor seat.

R1 CLEAN: Boris L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F. R2 CLEAN: my hand F/L/F disc F passed L+F; Marek disclosed L+F enacted L -> CLOSED. Deck ~9L/4F live. Contract signed by ALL incl. Ines t=89. Sequencing slip acknowledged (Boris t=2); pre-enactment disclosure order going forward. OTTO: silent through prompts t=127+, Ja locked t=121 after nom moved to Marek, 'slipped' excuse. Mild suspicion; watch when he enters gov. Owes me real answer to t=82 ask -- still unanswered. Do NOT relitigate switch. SAID OUT LOUD: holdout call Ines, sequencing confirm t=75, switch reasoning t=18, Otto Ja ask t=82, hand disclosure t=6/t=11, two-clean-govs note t=3, rotation/term-limits note (me+Marek barred as chancellors), extended protocol (nominee discloses RECEIVED pair BEFORE enacting), named coverage pool Greta/Tomas/Ines/Pavel/Nadia/Otto. THIS TURN SAID: pressing Rosa on unanswered all-Fascist-draw contingency (Nadia raised it t=2, Rosa answered pick+disclosure but NOT that case). ROSA: committed to announcing full 3-card draw pre-pass + nominee Nadia (t=3). Veto NOT unlocked at 0F policies -- all-Fascist draw = 2F enact no matter what; need loud announcement so chancellor discard is checkable. R3 next pres likely Rosa. Term limits: Lena+Marek barred from chancellor seat. Watch who volunteers for chancellor.

R1 CLEAN: Boris L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F. R2 CLEAN: me F/L/F disc F passed L+F; Marek disclosed L+F enacted L -> CLOSED. Deck live ~9L/4F (Boris math t=2). Contract signed by ALL incl. Ines t=89, Pavel t=35. Sequencing slip (disclosures landed post-enactment) flagged by Boris t=28; enforce pre-enactment order going forward. OTTO: silent through 3 prompts t=127+, Ja locked t=121 only after nom moved to Marek; 'slipped' excuse; Boris follow-up t=54 answered yes t=59. Mild suspicion, watch when in gov. SAID OUT LOUD (do NOT repeat): holdout call Ines, sequencing confirm Greta t=75, switch reasoning t=18, Otto Ja ask t=82, my hand disclosure t=6/t=11, two-clean-govs note, extended protocol (nominee discloses RECEIVED pair BEFORE enacting), coverage pool naming, Pavel contract challenge R1. THIS TURN SAID: pressing Rosa on unanswered all-Fascist-draw contingency (Nadia raised t=67, Rosa answered pick+disclosure but not that case). R3: Rosa pres, chancellor pick Nadia (t=72). Term limits bar Lena+Marek as chancellors. Watch volunteers. Veto NOT unlocked at 0F -- all-Fascist draw = forced F enactment; need loud pre-pass announcement so discard is checkable vs deck odds.

R1 CLEAN: Boris L/F/F disc F passed L+F; Rosa enacted L disc F. R2 CLEAN: me F/L/F disc F passed L+F; Marek disclosed L+F enacted L -> CLOSED. Deck live ~9L/4F. Contract signed by ALL incl. Ines t=89, Pavel t=35. Sequencing slip flagged by Boris t=28: disclosures must land PRE-enactment going forward. OTTO: silent through 3 prompts t=127+, Ja locked t=121 only after nom moved to Marek; 'slipped' excuse; Boris follow-up answered yes t=59. Mild suspicion, watch when in gov. SAID OUT LOUD (do NOT repeat): holdout call Ines, sequencing confirm Greta t=75, switch reasoning t=18, Otto Ja ask t=82, my hand disclosure t=6/t=11, two-clean-govs note, extended protocol (nominee discloses RECEIVED pair BEFORE enacting), coverage pool naming, Pavel contract challenge R1, all-Fascist-draw loud-announcement demand on Rosa. THIS TURN: acknowledged Rosa closed the contingency (t=3), restated pre-enactment disclosure order binds R3, asked Nadia to confirm she'll disclose received pair before enacting. R3: Rosa pres, chancellor Nadia (picked t=72). Term limits bar Lena+Marek as chancellors. Veto NOT unlocked at 0F -- all-Fascist draw = forced F enactment; Rosa committed t=3 to announce 3F draw before passing. Hold her to it.

DECK COUNT CORRECTED: live 9L/2F (not 9L/4F as old note). Verified from disclosed hands: R1 Boris L/F/F disc F -> Rosa enacted L disc F; R2 me F/L/F disc F -> Marek disclosed L+F enacted L disc F. Total gone: 2L enacted + 4F discarded = 6. Deck must be 11L/6F. Rosa's 'two Fascists remain' t=1 is CORRECT; Nadia's ~half odds correct (1-C(9,3)/C(11,3)=0.49). R3 SETUP: Rosa pres, chancellor Nadia (picked t=72). Term limits bar Lena+Marek as chancellors. Veto NOT unlocked at 0F -- all-F draw impossible now (only 2F), lone-F draw = forced enactment unless veto... veto unavailable, so lone F WILL be enacted by whoever holds it. Contract signed by ALL incl. Ines t=89, Pavel t=35. Pre-enactment disclosure order binds R3 (sequencing slip flagged Boris t=28). OTTO: silent through 3 prompts t=127+, Ja locked t=121 only after nom moved to Marek; 'slipped' excuse; Boris follow-up answered yes t=59. Mild suspicion, watch when in gov. SAID OUT LOUD (do NOT repeat): holdout call Ines, sequencing confirm Greta t=75, switch reasoning t=18, Otto Ja ask t=82, my hand disclosure t=6/t=11, two-clean-govs note, extended protocol (nominee discloses RECEIVED pair BEFORE enacting), coverage pool naming, Pavel contract challenge R1, all-F-draw loud-announcement demand on Rosa. THIS TURN: corroborated Rosa's count from my own tracked hands; noted 3F draws now impossible so Rosa's announcement duty reduces to lone-F draws; Nadia confirmed disclose-before-enact t=2 (closed). OPEN: none pending. Watch: Otto first time in gov; anyone who passes/discards inconsistently with disclosure under 2F-left conditions.

DECK: live 9L/2F (11 total). Verified hands: R1 Boris L/F/F disc F -> Rosa enacted L disc F; R2 me F/L/F disc F -> Marek disclosed L+F enacted L disc F. Gone: 2L+4F=6. Rosa's 'two Fascists remain' t=1 CORRECT; Nadia ~half odds (1-C(9,3)/C(11,3)=0.49). R3: Rosa pres, chancellor Nadia (picked t=72). Term limits bar Lena+Marek as chancellors. Veto NOT unlocked at 0F; all-F impossible now; lone-F draw = FORCED enactment, no veto available -- protocol attributes blame but cannot stop an F. Contract signed by ALL incl. Ines t=89, Pavel t=35. Pre-enactment disclosure order binds R3 (Boris flagged slip t=28). Nadia confirmed disclose-before-enact t=2 (closed). OTTO: silent through prompts t=127+, Ja locked t=121 only after nom moved Marek; 'slipped' excuse; Boris follow-up yes t=59. Mild suspicion; watch first time in gov. THIS TURN: endorsed Otto's Rosa-announces-pass / Nadia-announces-receipt cross-check; demanded pre-agreed MISMATCH adjudication rule (if Nadia's receipt != Rosa's pass, whose claim wins?) before any card moves; noted protocol can't block lone-F, only assign blame. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): holdout call Ines; sequencing confirm Greta t=75; switch reasoning t=18; Otto Ja ask t=82; my hand disclosure t=6/t=11; two-clean-govs note; extended protocol; coverage pool naming; Pavel contract challenge R1; all-F loud-announcement demand on Rosa; corroborated Rosa's count from my tracked hands; lone-F-forces-enactment point. OPEN: none pending. Watch: Otto in gov; anyone passing/discarding inconsistently with disclosures under 2F-left.

DECK: live 9L/2F (11 total). Verified hands: R1 Boris L/F/F disc F -> Rosa enacted L disc F; R2 me F/L/F disc F -> Marek L+F enacted L disc F. Gone 6 cards. Rosa count CORRECT; Nadia odds (~half draws contain F) correct. R3: Rosa pres, chancellor Nadia (picked t=72). Term limits bar Lena+Marek. Veto LOCKED at 0F -> lone-F draw = forced enactment, cannot be stopped; protocol only assigns blame. Contract signed by ALL (Ines t=89, Pavel t=35 last). Pre-enact disclosure order binds R3; Boris flagged Marek's sequencing slip t=28 R2. OTTO: silent through 3 prompts t=127+, Ja locked t=121 only after nom moved to Marek; 'slipped' excuse + Boris follow-up yes t=59. Mild suspicion; watch first gov. THIS TURN (said): demanded pre-agreed MISMATCH adjudication rule for Rosa-pass vs Nadia-receipt dispute BEFORE cards move; noted lone-F forced enactment under Rosa-Nadia, judge disclosures not color. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): holdout call Ines; sequencing confirm Greta t=75; switch reasoning t=18; Otto Ja ask t=82; my hand disclosure t=6/11; two-clean-govs; Pavel contract challenge R1; all-F loud-announce demand on Rosa (she answered t=93); corroborated discard count. OPEN: none pending on me. Watch: Otto first gov; anyone's disclosure inconsistent with tracked hands.

DECK: live 9L/2F (11 total). Verified hands: R1 Boris L/F/F disc F -> Rosa enacted L disc F; R2 me F/L/F disc F -> Marek L+F enacted L disc F. Gone 6 cards. Rosa count CORRECT; Nadia odds correct. R3: Rosa pres, chancellor Nadia. Term limits bar Lena+Marek. Veto LOCKED at 0F -> lone-F draw = forced enactment, cannot be stopped; protocol only assigns blame. Contract signed by ALL (Ines t=89, Pavel t=35 last). Pre-enact disclosure order binds R3; Boris flagged Marek sequencing slip t=28 R2. OTTO: silent through 3 prompts t=127+, Ja locked only after nom moved to Marek; 'slipped' excuse + Boris follow-up yes. Mild suspicion; watch first gov. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): MISMATCH adjudication rule demand for Rosa-pass vs Nadia-receipt dispute BEFORE cards move; lone-F forced-enactment warning, judge disclosures not color; holdout call Ines; Greta sequencing confirm; switch reasoning; Otto Ja ask; my hand disclosure t=6/11; two-clean-govs; Pavel contract challenge R1; all-F loud-announce demand on Rosa (answered); corroborated discard count. OPEN: none pending on me. Watch: Otto first gov; disclosure inconsistencies vs tracked hands.

DECK: live 9L/2F (11). Verified: R1 Boris L/F/F disc F -> Rosa enacted L disc F; R2 me F/L/F disc F -> Marek L+F enacted L disc F. Gone 6. Rosa count CORRECT. R3: Rosa pres -> Nadia nominee. Term limits bar me+Marek. Veto LOCKED at 0F: lone-F draw = forced enactment, blame-assignment only. Disclosure contract signed by all (Ines t=89 last). OTTO: silent through prompts t=127+; mild suspicion; watch his first gov. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication rule pre-move; lone-F forced-enactment warning (judge disclosures not color); holdout call Ines; Greta sequencing confirm; switch reasoning; Otto Ja ask; my hand disclosure t=6/11; two-clean-govs; Pavel contract challenge; all-F loud-announce demand (answered); corroborated discard counts. OPEN: none pending on me. WATCH: Otto first gov; disclosure vs tracked hands; Nadia pair-first disclosure + no-veto pledge honored.

DECK: live 9L/2F (11). Verified: R1 Boris L/F/F disc F -> Rosa enacted L disc F; R2 me F/L/F disc F -> Marek L+F enacted L disc F. Gone 6. Rosa count CORRECT. R3: Rosa pres -> Nadia nominee. Term limits bar me+Marek. Veto LOCKED at 0F: lone-F draw = forced enactment. Disclosure contract signed by all (Ines t=89 last). OTTO: silent through prompts t=127+; mild suspicion; watch his first gov. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication rule pre-move; lone-F forced-enactment warning; holdout call Ines; Greta sequencing confirm; switch reasoning; Otto Ja ask; my hand disclosure t=6/11; two-clean-govs; Pavel contract challenge; all-F loud-announce demand (answered); corroborated discard counts. NEW t=this turn: asked Rosa+Nadia pre-vote pledges -- Nadia pair-first disclosure + no-veto; Rosa all-F loud-announce restated. OPEN: none pending on me. WATCH: Otto first gov; Nadia honoring pledges; disclosure vs tracked hands.

DECK: live 9L/2F (11). Verified: R1 Boris L/F/F disc F -> Rosa enacted L disc F; R2 me F/L/F disc F -> Marek L+F enacted L disc F. Gone 6. Rosa count CORRECT. R3: Rosa pres -> Nadia nominee. Term limits bar me+Marek. Veto LOCKED at 0F: lone-F draw = forced enactment. Disclosure contract signed by all (Ines t=89 last). OTTO: silent through prompts t=127+; mild suspicion; watch his first gov. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication rule pre-move; lone-F forced-enactment warning; holdout call Ines; Greta sequencing confirm; switch reasoning; Otto Ja ask; my hand disclosure t=6/11; two-clean-govs; Pavel contract challenge; all-F loud-announce demand (answered); corroborated discard counts; pre-vote pledges asked of Rosa+Nadia -- Nadia pair-first disclosure + no-veto, Rosa all-F loud-announce restated. NEW this window t~late: Nadia demanding Rosa confirm announced cards/discard FINAL before vote -- supports it, no need to restate mine. OPEN: none pending on me. WATCH: Otto first gov; Nadia honoring pair-first pledge; Rosa final-answer to Nadia; disclosure vs tracked hands.

DECK: live 9L/2F (11). Verified: R1 Boris L/F/F disc F -> Rosa enacted L disc F; R2 me F/L/F disc F -> Marek L+F enacted L disc F. Gone 6. Rosa count CORRECT. R3: Rosa pres -> Nadia nominee. Term limits bar me+Marek. Veto LOCKED at 0F: lone-F draw = forced enactment. Disclosure contract signed by all (Ines t=89 last). OTTO: silent through prompts t=127+; mild suspicion; watch his first gov. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication rule pre-move; lone-F forced-enactment warning; holdout call Ines; Greta sequencing confirm; switch reasoning; Otto Ja ask; my hand disclosure t=6/11; two-clean-govs; Pavel contract challenge; all-F loud-announce demand (answered); corroborated discard counts; pre-vote pledges asked of Rosa+Nadia -- Nadia pair-first disclosure + no-veto, Rosa all-F loud-announce restated. LATE WINDOW: Nadia demanded Rosa confirm announced cards/discard FINAL pre-vote -- Rosa confirmed final at t~latest, contract fully closed. Nothing new to add; staying silent into vote. OPEN: none pending on me. WATCH: Otto first gov; Nadia honoring pair-first pledge + no-veto pledge; Rosa honoring loud-announce pledge; disclosure vs tracked hands.

DECK: live 9L/2F (11). Verified: R1 Boris L/F/F disc F -> Rosa enacted L disc F; R2 me F/L/F disc F -> Marek L+F enacted L disc F. Gone 6. Rosa count CORRECT. R3 VOTE: JA on Rosa-Nadia. All conditions closed: Nadia pair-first disclosure + no-veto + mismatch rule (lying Fascist brand); Rosa draw-before-pass + discard FINAL + all-F loud announce. Otto verify-then-enact w/ consequences locked. OTTO: silent through R2 prompts t=127+, mild suspicion; watch his first gov. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication rule pre-move; lone-F forced-enactment warning (veto locked); holdout call Ines -> signed t=89; Greta sequencing confirm; switch reasoning Otto->Marek; Otto Ja ask -> confirmed locked t=121; my hand disclosure t=6/11; two-clean-govs; Pavel contract challenge -> signed; all-F loud-announce demand -> Rosa answered t=93/102; corroborated discard counts; pre-vote pledges asked of both nominees. LATE WINDOW: Nadia demanded Rosa cards/discard FINAL pre-vote -> Rosa confirmed final. Nothing new to add; stayed silent into vote. OPEN: none pending on me. WATCH: Otto first gov; Nadia honoring pair-first pledge + no-veto; Rosa honoring draw-before-pass + FINAL pledge; disclosure vs tracked hands.

DECK: live 9L/2F (11) pre-R3. Verified: R1 Boris L/F/F disc F -> Rosa enacted L; R2 me F/L/F disc F -> Marek L+F, enacted L disc F. Gone 6 disc + 3 enacted. R3 OUTCOME: Rosa-Nadia JA, FASCIST enacted. Culprits: Rosa, Nadia, or 1-of-2 live F drawn (plausible luck). PRE-VOTE PLEDGES: Rosa draw-before-pass + discard FINAL + all-F loud announce (answered t=93/102); Nadia pair-first disclosure + no-veto + mismatch rule. Both locked pre-vote -> compare claims vs outcome NOW. MY ASKS THIS WINDOW: Nadia - did you receive 2F? veto attempted? Rosa - does enacted F match your announced hand/discard? Any mismatch = branded liar. OTTO: silent through R2 prompts; watch his first gov. Ines holdout called (signed t=89). Pavel contract challenge signed. Greta sequencing confirmed. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication rule; lone-F forced-enactment warning; two-clean-govs point; my own hand disclosure t=6/11; corroborated discard counts; pre-vote pledges asked of both nominees. WATCH: Otto first gov; whether Rosa/Nadia claims survive reconciliation with R3 F enactment.

DECK: live 9L/2F (11) pre-R3. Verified hands: R1 Boris L/F/F disc F -> Rosa L; R2 me F/L/F disc F -> Marek pair matched, enacted L disc F. R3 OUTCOME: Rosa-Nadia passed vote 10-0 -> FASCIST enacted (1/6). No pre-enactment disclosure on record from either despite locked pledges (Rosa t=93/102/14-final; Nadia pair-first + mismatch rule). Luck plausible: ~half of draws contain lone F (only 2 F live). MY ASK THIS WINDOW (t pending): Rosa - announce draw+discard now; Nadia - received pair now. Reconcile vs lone-F enactment. Mismatch = branded liar per rule both signed. Protocol breach itself is evidence regardless of card color. OTTO: silent through R2 prompts, 'sloppiness' excuse, verify-then-enact author; watch his first gov. Ines signed contract t=89. Pavel signed t=35. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enactment warning; two-clean-govs; my own hand disclosure; pre-vote pledge asks; NOW: post-enactment disclosure demand. WATCH: do Rosa/Nadia claims reconcile arithmetically (draw minus discard = passed pair containing >=1 F)? If Rosa claims all-Liberal draw, arithmetic impossible -> outright lie. Next gov coverage: Greta, Ines, Otto, Tomas, Pavel, Boris never held Chancellor seat.

DECK: live 9L/2F (11) pre-R3. Verified hands: R1 Boris L/F/F disc F -> Rosa L; R2 me F/L/F disc F -> Marek matched, L enacted. R3: Rosa(P)-Nadia(C) 10-0 pass -> FASCIST enacted 1/6. No pre-enactment disclosures despite locked pledges. Luck plausible (~half draws hold lone F). MY DEMANDS OUTSTANDING: Rosa draw+discard NOW; Nadia received pair NOW (t=1 mine; Greta/Otto pressing Rosa only). NADIA SILENT so far - primary target this window. ARITHMETIC CHECK: enacted F => passed pair had >=1 F => Rosa's draw minus discard must contain >=1 F. If Rosa claims all-L draw => impossible => outright lie. Nadia's pair must equal Rosa's claimed pass exactly. CONSEQUENCE RULE both signed pre-vote: mismatch = branded lying Fascists. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact warning; two-clean-govs; my hand disclosure; pre-vote pledge asks; post-enactment disclosure demand. OTTO: silent thru R2, 'sloppiness' excuse, verify-then-enact author - watch his first gov. Ines/Pavel signed contract. WATCH NEXT GOV COVERAGE: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris never held C seat. Term limits bar Rosa+Nadia next round.

DECK: live 9L/2F (11) pre-R3. Verified hands: R1 Boris L/F/F disc F -> Rosa L; R2 me F/L/F disc F -> Marek matched, L enacted. R3: Rosa(P)-Nadia(C) 10-0 -> FASCIST 1/6. No pre/post disclosures despite locked pledges. Both silent so far. KEY REFINEMENT (said this window): Otto's 'Nadia had a Lib' pin only holds if Rosa discarded an L. Enumerate: draw 2F+1L + disc F = honest pass L+F, Nadia CHOSE F over L; draw 1F+2L + disc L = Rosa lied/fascist forcing FF; draw 3L = F enactment impossible w/o Nadia lying. So ONLY Nadia escape is FF pair => requires Rosa claiming L discard. Interlocked disclosures: Rosa draw+discard AND Nadia pair must match exactly; mismatch/FF-claim brands Rosa. MY DEMANDS OUTSTANDING: Rosa draw+discard NOW; Nadia received pair NOW. NADIA SILENT while Otto/Greta pile on Rosa -- letting Rosa absorb heat; primary target. CONSEQUENCE RULE signed pre-vote: mismatch = branded lying Fascists. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact warning; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand disclosure; pre-vote pledge asks; post-enactment disclosure demand. OTTO: silent thru R2, verify-then-enact author, watch his first gov. Ines/Pavel signed contract. WATCH NEXT GOV COVERAGE: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris never held C seat. Term limits bar Rosa+Nadia next round.

DECK: live 9L/2F (11) pre-R3. Verified: R1 Boris L/F/F disc F -> Rosa L; R2 me F/L/F disc F -> Marek, L enacted. R3: Rosa(P)-Nadia(C) 10-0 -> FASCIST 1/6. No disclosures yet from either despite locked pledges. ENUMERATION: Nadia's ONLY escape = received F-F, which requires Rosa claiming L discard. Any other combo brands someone: Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L (guilty); Rosa claims 3L draw => enactment impossible w/o Nadia lying. MY STANDARD ANSWERED TO INES THIS TURN: 'clean' = Rosa L-discard + Nadia F-F pair, and ONLY provisionally -- coordinated fascist pair can fabricate matching stories, so even the clean answer doesn't clear them fully; silence or mismatch brands outright. STILL OWED: Rosa draw+discard NOW; Nadia received-pair NOW. Both silent while Otto/Greta pile on Rosa -- suspicious heat distribution, Nadia primary suspect. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact warning; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand disclosure; pre-vote pledges; post-enactment disclosure demand; enumeration above; consequence rule signed pre-vote by Ines/Pavel/me. OTTO: silent thru R2, verify-then-enact author, watch his first gov. Ines/Pavel signed contract. WATCH NEXT GOV: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris never held C seat. Term limits bar Rosa+Nadia next round.

DECK: live 8L/2F (10) post-R3. Verified: R1 Boris P/Rosa C -> Lib; R2 me P/Marek C -> Lib (my hand: F/L/F, disc F). R3 Rosa(P)-Nadia(C) 10-0 -> FASCIST 1/6. ENUM CONFIRMED PUBLICLY BY BORIS: exactly two live stories -- (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F, both clean; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L, Nadia guilty. Rosa's 3L-draw claim impossible (enactment public); FFF impossible w/ 2F deck. NEW POINT MADE THIS TURN: Nadia pre-framed 'ONE hand that clears Rosa' BEFORE Rosa spoke -- self-serving framing that also clears herself; don't let it become default. Demanded Rosa disclose draw+discard AND Nadia disclose received-pair SIMULTANEOUSLY. STILL OWED: Rosa draw+discard NOW; Nadia received-pair NOW. Both silent while Otto/Greta pile heat on Rosa only -- deflection pattern favors Nadia, keep primary suspicion on her. EVEN CLEAN STORY NOT FULL CLEAR: coordinated fascist pair can fabricate matching stories (said earlier). SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact warning; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand disclosure; pre-vote pledges; post-enactment disclosure demand; consequence rule signed by Ines/Pavel/me; enumeration; Boris's two-story math (his, credit him). OTTO: silent thru R2, verify-then-enact author, first gov watch. NEXT GOV: term limits bar Rosa+Nadia from C seat; Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris never held C.

DECK: live 8L/2F (10) post-R3. Verified: R1 Boris P/Rosa C -> Lib; R2 me P/Marek C -> Lib (my hand F/L/F, disc F). R3 Rosa(P)-Nadia(C) 10-0 -> FASCIST 1/6. ENUM CONFIRMED BY BORIS: two live stories -- (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F, both clean; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L, Nadia guilty. Rosa's 3L-draw impossible; FFF impossible w/ 2F deck. NEW THIS TURN: Rosa finally claims she SPOKE draw+discard earlier ('final-once-said rule'), matching Nadia's receipt card-for-card -- but STILL has not said WHICH story. Ambiguity shields the liar. I demanded: Rosa name her discard (L or F) explicitly AND Nadia confirm received pair verbatim. Watch for drift between retellings. IF STORY (a): both mechanically clean but coordinated-pair fabrication still possible (said already). IF (b): Nadia guilty, Rosa clean-ish. PATTERN: Otto/Greta piled heat on Rosa only; Nadia quiet -- deflection favors Nadia, keep primary suspicion on her unless story (a) confirmed by both. OWED: explicit story choice from Rosa+Nadia. Nobody else owes me anything yet. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact warning; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; pre-vote pledges; post-enactment disclosure demand; consequence rule (Ines/Pavel/me); enumeration; Boris two-story math; even-matching-story-not-full-clear. OTTO: silent thru R2, verify-then-enact author, first gov watch. NEXT GOV: term limits bar Rosa+Nadia from C; eligible never-held-C: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris.

DECK: live 8L/2F (10) post-R3. Verified: R1 Boris P/Rosa C -> Lib; R2 me P/Marek C -> Lib (my hand F/L/F, disc F). R3 Rosa(P)-Nadia(C) 10-0 -> FASCIST 1/6. ENUM CONFIRMED BY BORIS: two live stories -- (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F, both clean; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L, Nadia guilty. Rosa's 3L-draw impossible; FFF impossible w/ 2F deck. NEW THIS TURN: Marek independently flagged Rosa's 'final-once-said' invocation has NO transcript support -- I amplified: a finality rule can't lock words absent from record. Pavel set the four-word exit: say 'two Fascists plus Liberal, discarded the Liberal' or wear it. Rosa STILL hasn't picked story (a) or (b). Ambiguity shields the liar. IF STORY (a): mechanically clean pair, coordinated fabrication still possible. IF (b): Nadia guilty, Rosa clean-ish. PATTERN: Otto/Greta piled heat on Rosa only; Nadia quiet -- deflection favors Nadia, keep primary suspicion on her unless story (a) confirmed by both verbatim. OWED: explicit story choice from Rosa AND Nadia's verbatim received-pair confirmation. Nobody else owes me anything yet. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact warning; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; pre-vote pledges; post-enactment disclosure demand; consequence rule (Ines/Pavel/me); enumeration; Boris two-story math; even-matching-story-not-full-clear. NEXT GOV: term limits bar Rosa+Nadia from C; eligible never-held-C: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris.

DECK: live 8L/2F post-R3. R1 BorisP/RosaC->Lib; R2 meP/MarekC->Lib (my hand F/L/F, disc F); R3 RosaP/NadiaC 10-0 -> FASCIST 1/6. ENUM: two live stories -- (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F, both clean-ish; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L, Nadia guilty. 3L-draw & FFF impossible w/ 2F deck. NEW THIS TURN: Tomas flagged Rosa was President when Fascist policy 1 fired => Rosa OWES investigation target+result publicly. I amplified: Rosa now owes THREE things -- (1) four-word draw/discard, (2) investigation target+what she saw, (3) pick story (a) or (b) explicitly. Silence on any one = pattern. NADIA: 'no-veto pledge' is empty flavor -- veto needs 5F, not unlocked; her F-F receipt is unverifiable alone, only Rosa's words adjudicate. If both speak verbatim and MATCH => story (a), pair clean-but-suspect; MISMATCH => one of them lying, other likely clean; ROSA SILENT => default suspicion shifts to Rosa. PATTERN: Otto/Greta piled heat on Rosa only, Nadia quiet -- deflection favors Nadia; keep dual suspicion until verbatim match confirmed. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact warning; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; pre-vote pledges; post-enactment disclosure demand; consequence rule; enumeration; Boris two-story math; even-match-not-full-clear. OWED: Rosa = 3 items above. Nadia = confirm receipt verbatim once Rosa speaks. NEXT GOV: Rosa+Nadia term-limited from C; eligible first-time C: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris. Lean Boris or Ines for C next.

DECK: live 8L/2F post-R3. R1 BorisP/RosaC->Lib; R2 meP/MarekC->Lib (my hand F/L/F, disc F); R3 RosaP/NadiaC 10-0 -> FASCIST 1/6. ENUM: story (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; story (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. 3L-draw & FFF impossible w/ 2F deck. KEY CAUGHT: Rosa claimed her draw was 'spoken under final-once-said rule' -- NO such announcement exists in transcript (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103 flagged). Fabricated announcement = serious mark vs Rosa. INVESTIGATION: Fascist policy 1 fired R3, Rosa was President => owes target+result publicly (Tomas t=125). MY NEW ASK: Rosa announces investigation target/result BEFORE restating card story -- prevent cross-tailoring of two unverifiable claims. OWED by Rosa: (1) four-word draw/discard, (2) investigation target+result, (3) pick story (a) or (b). NADIA: locked receipt F-F, 'zero choice' -- but no-veto pledge is empty flavor (veto needs 5F); her receipt only adjudicable via Rosa's words. If verbatim MATCH => story (a), still not full clear (coordinated fascists match for free). MISMATCH => one lying, other likely clean. ROSA SILENT => suspicion defaults Rosa. PATTERN: Otto/Greta piled heat on Rosa only, Nadia quieter -- keep dual suspicion. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact warning; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; pre-vote pledges; post-enactment disclosure demand; consequence rule; enumeration; even-match-not-full-clear. NEXT GOV: Rosa+Nadia term-limited from C; eligible first-time C: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris. Lean Boris or Ines for C next.

DECK: live 8L/2F post-R3. R1 BorisP/RosaC->Lib; R2 meP/MarekC->Lib (my hand F/L/F, disc F); R3 RosaP/NadiaC 10-0 -> FASCIST 1/6. ENUM: story (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; story (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. 3L-draw & FFF impossible w/ 2F deck. KEY CAUGHT: Rosa claimed draw 'spoken under final-once-said rule' -- no such announcement in transcript (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103). Fabricated announcement = mark vs Rosa. INVESTIGATION: Fascist policy 1 fired R3, Rosa President => owes target+result publicly (Tomas t=125). THIS TURN'S NEW ASK: sequencing -- Rosa gives investigation target+result BEFORE restating draw/discard, so two unverifiable claims can't be cross-tailored. OWED by Rosa: (1) four-word draw/discard, (2) investigation target+result, (3) pick story (a) or (b). NADIA: locked receipt F-F 'zero choice'; adjudicable only via Rosa's words. MATCH => story (a), still not full clear (coordinated fascists match free). MISMATCH => one lying, other likely clean. ROSA SILENT => suspicion defaults Rosa. PATTERN: Otto/Greta piled heat on Rosa only; Nadia quieter -- dual suspicion. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact warning; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; pre-vote pledges; post-enactment disclosure demand; consequence rule; enumeration; even-match-not-full-clear. NEXT GOV: Rosa+Nadia term-limited from C; eligible first-time C: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris. Lean Boris or Ines for C next.

DECK: live 8L/2F post-R3. R1 BorisP/RosaC->Lib; R2 meP/MarekC->Lib (my hand F/L/F, disc F); R3 RosaP/NadiaC 10-0 -> FASCIST 1/6. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. 3L-draw & FFF impossible w/ 2F deck. KEY CAUGHT: Rosa claimed draw 'spoken under final-once-said rule' -- no such announcement in transcript (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103). Fabricated announcement = mark vs Rosa. INVESTIGATION: Fascist policy 1 fired R3 under Rosa P => she owes target+result publicly. THIS TURN SAID: sequencing demand -- Rosa gives investigation target+result BEFORE restating draw/discard/story pick, so two unverifiable claims can't be cross-tailored. OWED by Rosa: (1) four-word draw/discard, (2) investigation target+result, (3) story (a) or (b). NADIA: locked receipt F-F 'zero choice'; adjudicable only via Rosa's words. MATCH => story (a), still not full clear (coordinated fascists match free). MISMATCH => one lying, other likely clean. ROSA SILENT => suspicion defaults Rosa. NADIA t~121 demanded Rosa pre-commit investigation target + bind result to future votes -- good pressure, support it. OTTO reframe: Nadia's F-F receipt makes her/Rosa adversaries unless coordinated -- consistent w/ my mismatch hole. BORIS t=120 attacked INES: three defensive plays for R3 gov (shot down Otto's line, shrank Q to Rosa alone, demanded accuser standards). Watch Ines as possible third fascist/defender. PATTERN: Otto/Greta piled heat on Rosa only; Nadia quieter -- dual suspicion stands. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact warning; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; pre-vote pledges; post-enactment disclosure demand; consequence rule; enumeration; even-match-not-full-clear; sequencing-of-disclosures ask (this turn); Ines-defender flag if I get floor again. NEXT GOV: Rosa+Nadia term-limited from C; eligible first-time C: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris. Lean Boris or Ines for C next.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek's L/F disc F, publicly matched). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. PAVEL FLAGGED: t=29 false deck-math 'correction' (claims only 2F burned) + t=103 offered FFL-disc-L 'exit' clearing both Rosa&Nadia (Tomas corrected him). Two defensive plays for R3 gov => Pavel suspect #3 candidate alongside Ines. ENUM (locked given 8L/2F): (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. No excusable draw. KEY CAUGHT: Rosa claimed draw 'spoken under final-once-said rule' — never announced (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103). Fabricated announcement. ROSA OWES: (1) four-word draw/discard, (2) investigation target+result (fired under her P), (3) story (a)/(b). Still silent as of window end. NADIA: locked F-F receipt; match=>story(a) but coordinated-fascist caveat; mismatch=>one lying. BORIS flagged INES (3 defensive plays); I independently noted Pavel. Watch Ines+Pavel as possible fascist bloc w/ Rosa-Nadia. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; pre-vote pledges; post-enact disclosure demand; consequence rule; enumeration; even-match-not-full-clear; sequencing-of-disclosures ask; THIS TURN: Pavel's false deck math + second defensive play. NEXT GOV: Rosa+Nadia term-limited from C; first-time C eligible: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris. Lean Boris or Greta C next; exclude Pavel/Ines from C while unexplained.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek's L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. No excusable draw. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed draw 'announced' but never was (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103 confirm). Fabricated announcement. PAVEL FLAGGED: false deck-math 'correction' (t=29, claims only 2F burned vs verified 4F) + t=103 FFL-disc-L 'exit' clearing both Rosa&Nadia (Tomas corrected). Two defensive plays for R3 gov => Pavel suspect #3 alongside Ines (Boris flagged Ines: 3 defensive plays). INVESTIGATE POWER LIVE under Rosa: DEMAND she name target BEFORE looking + report result verbatim after. Unverifiable either way, but pre-commitment harder to fabricate around. ROSA OWES: (1) four-word R3 draw/discard, (2) investigate target+result, (3) story (a)/(b). NADIA owes: locked F-F receipt confirmation; match=>story(a) w/ coordinated-fascist caveat; mismatch=>one lying. NEXT GOV: Rosa+Nadia term-limited from C. First-time C eligible: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris. Lean Boris or Greta C; EXCLUDE Pavel/Ines from C while unexplained. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; pre-vote pledges; post-enact disclosure demand; consequence rule; enumeration; even-match-not-full-clear; sequencing ask; Pavel false deck math + second defensive play.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek's L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. No excusable draw. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed draw 'announced' but never was (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103 confirm). Fabricated announcement. NEW t=3: Rosa announced investigate target+result TOGETHER, after looking -- violates Marek's own pre-commitment rule (his t=1), so result worthless by his standard. And a 'LIBERAL on Greta' conveniently clears a bystander while leaving Rosa unexamined; investigation never clears the INVESTIGATOR. If Rosa is R3-gov fascist, fake liberal result is the cheapest play. ROSA STILL OWES (dodged): (1) four-word R3 draw/discard, (2) story (a)/(b). She answered only the unverifiable ask. PAVEL FLAGGED: false deck-math 'correction' (t=29) + t=103 FFL-disc-L 'exit' clearing Rosa&Nadia (Tomas corrected). Two defensive plays for R3 gov => suspect #3 alongside Ines (Boris flagged Ines: 3 defensive plays). INVESTIGATE POWER SPENT by Rosa: no further power demands possible this round. NADIA owes: locked F-F receipt confirmation; match=>story(a) w/ coordinated-fascist caveat; mismatch=>one lying. NEXT GOV: Rosa+Nadia term-limited from C. First-time C eligible: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris. Lean Boris or Greta C; EXCLUDE Pavel/Ines from C while unexplained. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; pre-vote pledges; post-enact disclosure demand; consequence rule; enumeration; even-match-not-full-clear; sequencing ask; Pavel false deck math + second defensive play.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek's L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. No excusable draw. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed draw 'announced' under final-once-spoken rule but never spoken (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103). Fabricated announcement. ROSA'S INVESTIGATION (t=55): target Greta, result LIBERAL -- UNVERIFIABLE, worthless as clearing evidence; fascist investigator would always say Liberal. Also she looked BEFORE naming target (past tense 'was'), violating Marek's own pre-commitment rule => breach #4. Result conveniently clears bystander, never clears investigator. ROSA STILL OWES: four-word draw/discard + story (a)/(b). She dodged both again. PAVEL FLAGGED: false deck-math 'correction' (t=29) + t=103 FFL-disc-L 'exit' clearing Rosa&Nadia (Tomas corrected t=117). Two defensive plays => suspect #3. INES FLAGGED (Boris): shot down Otto's no-excuse line, shrank Q to Rosa alone, pinned accusers for standards -- 3 defensive plays. NADIA: locked F-F receipt (t=111); match=>story(a) w/ coordinated-fascist caveat; mismatch=>one lying. Her receipt convicts Rosa per Marek t=139. INVESTIGATE POWER SPENT by Rosa this round. NEXT GOV: Rosa+Nadia term-limited from C. First-time C eligible: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris. Lean Boris or Greta C; EXCLUDE Pavel/Ines from C while unexplained. Bind Rosa: her claimed Greta-Liberal must drive her nominations/votes next round. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure demand; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel false deck math; target-first-before-cards demand (t=132); NOW: Rosa answered only unverifiable Q, dodged draw/story, broke own target-first rule.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek's L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. No excusable draw. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed draw 'announced' under final-once-spoken rule but never spoken (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103). Fabricated announcement. ROSA'S INVESTIGATION (t=55): target Greta, result LIBERAL -- UNVERIFIABLE, worthless clearing evidence; fascist investigator always says Liberal. Also looked BEFORE naming target ('was'), violating Marek's pre-commitment rule => breach #4. Result clears bystander, never investigator. ROSA STILL OWES: four-word draw/discard + story (a)/(b). Dodged both again. PAVEL FLAGGED: false deck-math 'correction' (t=29) + t=103 FFL-disc-L 'exit' clearing Rosa&Nadia (Tomas corrected t=117). Two defensive plays => suspect #3. EXCLUDE from C. INES FLAGGED (Boris): shot down Otto's no-excuse line, shrank Q to Rosa alone, pinned accusers for standards -- 3 defensive plays. She's PRESIDENT now -- watch her nominee. NADIA: locked F-F receipt (t=111); match=>story(a) w/ coordinated-fascist caveat; mismatch=>one lying. Her receipt convicts Rosa per Marek t=139. INVESTIGATE POWER SPENT by Rosa this round. NEXT GOV: Rosa+Nadia term-limited from C. First-time C eligible: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris. EXCLUDE Pavel from C while unexplained. Bind Rosa: claimed Greta-Liberal must drive her votes/noms next round. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure demand; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel false deck math; target-first-before-cards demand (t=132); Rosa answered only unverifiable Q, dodged draw/story. NEW THIS TURN (t~now): demanded Ines PRE-COMMIT nominee + exclude Pavel; asked her to state discard plan in advance.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. No excusable draw. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed draw 'announced' under final-once-spoken rule but never spoken (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103). Fabricated announcement. ROSA INVESTIGATION (t=55): target Greta, result LIBERAL -- unverifiable, worthless clearing evidence; looked BEFORE naming target ('was') => breach #4. ROSA STILL OWES: four-word draw/discard + story (a)/(b). Dodged both again. PAVEL FLAGGED suspect #3: false deck math t=29 + FFL-disc-L exit t=103 (Tomas corrected t=117). EXCLUDE from C. Demanded Ines exclude him from nominee pool this turn. INES FLAGGED (Boris): 3 defensive plays for R3 gov (shot down Otto no-excuse line, shrank Q to Rosa, pinned accusers). She's PRESIDENT now -- judge her nominee against pre-commitments. NADIA: locked F-F receipt (t=111); match=>story(a); mismatch=>one lying; receipt convicts Rosa per Marek t=139. INVESTIGATE POWER SPENT by Rosa this round. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible for C. First-time C eligible: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris. EXCLUDE Pavel. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure demand; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Rosa answered only unverifiable Q; THIS TURN: Ines pre-commit excluding Pavel + Ja/Nein stance on Rosa pairings.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. No excusable draw. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed draw 'announced' under final-once-spoken rule but never spoken (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103). Fabricated announcement. ROSA INVESTIGATION (t=55): target Greta, result LIBERAL -- unverifiable clearing evidence; looked BEFORE naming target ('was') => breach #4. ROSA STILL OWES: four-word draw/discard + story (a)/(b). Dodged twice. PAVEL FLAGGED suspect #3: false deck math t=29 + FFL-disc-L exit t=103 (Tomas corrected t=117). Demanded Ines exclude him from pool. INES FLAGGED (Boris): 3 defensive plays for R3 gov. PRESIDENT now -- judge her nominee against pre-commitments; she has NOT answered Boris's Ja/Nein-on-Rosa Q (asked t=7 R4). NADIA: locked F-F receipt (t=111); match=>story(a); mismatch=>one lying; receipt convicts Rosa per Marek t=139. INVESTIGATE POWER SPENT by Rosa. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible for C. First-time C eligible: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris. EXCLUDE Pavel. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch adjudication hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure demand; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Rosa answered only unverifiable Q; THIS WINDOW: Pavel-exclusion ask + Ines owes Boris Ja/Nein answer.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. No excusable draw. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed draw 'announced' but never spoken (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103). Fabricated announcement. STILL OWES: four-word draw/discard + story (a)/(b). Dodged twice. ROSA INVESTIGATION (t=55): target Greta, result LIBERAL -- unverifiable clearing; named target AFTER peek ('was') => breach #4. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 + FFL-disc-L exit t=103 (Tomas corrected). Demanded exclusion from nominee pool. INES: president, owes Boris Ja/Nein-on-Rosa answer (asked t=7 R4) -- judge her nominee against it. NADIA: locked F-F receipt (t=111); match=>story(a) convicts Rosa; mismatch=>one lying. NEW THIS WINDOW: announced MY vote rule -- Nein on any pairing containing Rosa or Pavel unless Rosa discloses draw+discard BEFORE the vote. Asked Nadia restate exact R3 hand for comparison. INVESTIGATE POWER SPENT by Rosa. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. First-time C eligible: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris. EXCLUDE Pavel. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion + Ines-owes-Boris asks.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. No excusable draw. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed draw 'announced' but never spoken (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103). Fabricated announcement. STILL OWES: four-word draw/discard + story (a)/(b). Dodged twice. Marek t=133 now confirms checkability via Nadia's locked receipt -- aligned with me, no need to re-litigate. INES FLAG (NEW): t=134 committed 'yes, Ja on any government containing Rosa.' Rosa ineligible C this round (term limit), so not immediately actionable, but Ines has pre-committed to pass my prime suspect next time she's president/nominating. Watch who she nominates NOW as R4 president; judge nominee against that stance. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 + FFL-disc-L exit t=103 (Tomas corrected). Demanded exclusion from nominee pool. NADIA: locked F-F receipt (t=111); match=>story(a) convicts Rosa; mismatch=>one lying. MY VOTE RULE (announced): Nein on any pairing containing Rosa or Pavel unless Rosa discloses draw+discard BEFORE vote. INVESTIGATE POWER SPENT by Rosa (target Greta => LIBERAL, unverifiable clearing; named target AFTER peek = breach #4). TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. First-time C eligible: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Pavel/Boris. EXCLUDE Pavel. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion + Ines-owes-Boris asks.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. No excusable draw. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed draw 'announced' but never spoken (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103). Fabricated announcement. STILL OWES: four-word draw/discard + story (a)/(b). Dodged twice. INES FLAG: t=134 committed 'yes, Ja on any government containing Rosa.' Not actionable this round (Rosa term-limited C), but she owes an answer NOW: does she stand by that blanket pledge or retract it? Judged her R4 nomination: chose Greta -- fine, no suspect in pairing. If she dodges the question, flag for next presidency. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Demanded exclusion from nominee pool. NADIA: locked F-F receipt (t=111); match=>story(a) convicts Rosa; mismatch=>one lying. MY VOTE RULE (announced): Nein on any pairing containing Rosa or Pavel unless Rosa discloses BEFORE vote. Ines/Greta contains neither => I can vote Ja. INVESTIGATE SPENT by Rosa (target Greta => LIBERAL claim, unverifiable clearing; named target AFTER peek = breach #4). Greta's clearance is worthless as proof either way. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Eligible C pool minus Pavel: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion + Ines-owes-Boris asks. NEW THIS TURN: endorsing Ines/Greta as first non-suspect pairing; demanding Ines retract-or-confirm the blanket-Rosa pledge before voting.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. No excusable draw. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed draw 'announced' but never spoken (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103). Fabricated announcement. STILL OWES: four-word draw/discard + story (a)/(b). Dodged twice. INES FLAG: t=134 committed 'yes, Ja on any government containing Rosa.' Rosa term-limited C this round, but she owes an answer NOW: stand by blanket pledge or retract? Her R4 nomination (Greta) is fine -- no suspect in pairing. If she dodges, flag for next presidency. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Demanded exclusion from nominee pool. NADIA: locked F-F receipt (t=111); match=>story(a) convicts Rosa; mismatch=>one lying. MY VOTE RULE (announced): Nein on any pairing containing Rosa or Pavel unless Rosa discloses BEFORE vote. Ines/Greta contains neither => I vote Ja. INVESTIGATE SPENT by Rosa (target Greta => LIBERAL claim, unverifiable clearing; named target AFTER peek = breach #4). Greta's clearance worthless as proof either way. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Eligible C pool minus Pavel: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion + Ines-owes-Boris asks. NEW THIS TURN: endorsing Ines/Greta as first non-suspect pairing -- my Ja is conditional only on Ines answering the Rosa-pledge question BEFORE the vote.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. No excusable draw. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed draw 'announced' but never spoken (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103). Fabricated announcement. STILL OWES: four-word draw/discard + story (a)/(b). Dodged twice. INES: answered blanket-Ja pledge at t=32 (yes even with Rosa); still owes WHY she picked Greta (Nadia t=24 ask). R4 pairing Ines/Greta = no suspects => MY JA LOCKED. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Demanded exclusion from nominee pool; he responded t=26, unconvincing. NADIA: locked F-F receipt (t=111); match=>story(a) convicts Rosa; mismatch=>one lying. INVESTIGATE SPENT by Rosa (target Greta => LIBERAL claim, unverifiable clearing; named target AFTER peek = breach #4). TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Eligible C pool minus Pavel: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. MY VOTE RULE (announced): Nein on any pairing containing Rosa or Pavel unless Rosa discloses BEFORE vote. Ines/Greta => Ja locked. Greta owes pre-vote: (1) does Rosa's peek bind her (Boris t=19, Marek t=8), (2) announce pair before enacting (Otto t=15). Unanswered so far. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion + Ines-owes-Boris asks; my Ja on Ines/Greta + Greta's two pins.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. No excusable draw. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed draw 'announced' but never spoken (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103). Fabricated announcement. STILL OWES: four-word draw/discard + story (a)/(b). Dodged twice. INES: blanket-Ja pledge t=32; still owes WHY she picked Greta (Nadia t=24). R4 pairing no suspects => MY JA LOCKED. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. NADIA: locked F-F receipt t=111; match=>story(a) convicts Rosa; mismatch=>one lying. INVESTIGATE SPENT by Rosa (target Greta => LIBERAL claim unverifiable; named target AFTER peek = breach #4). TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Eligible C minus Pavel: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. VOTE RULE (announced): Nein on any pairing containing Rosa/Pavel unless Rosa discloses pre-vote. Ines/Greta => Ja locked. GRETA PINS: (1) announce exact pair pre-enact -- ANSWERED t=3, commit logged; (2) does Rosa's peek bind her -- STILL UNANSWERED (Boris t=19, Marek t=8). Pressing now. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion + Ines-owes asks; my Ja + both pins.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. No excusable draw. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed draw 'announced' but never spoken (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103). Fabricated announcement. STILL OWES: four-word draw/discard + story (a)/(b). Dodged twice. INES: blanket-Ja pledge t=32; STILL OWES why-Greta (Nadia t=24, Marek x3 dodges logged). R4 pairing no suspects => MY JA LOCKED. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. NADIA: locked F-F receipt t=111; match=>story(a) convicts Rosa; mismatch=>one lying. INVESTIGATE SPENT by Rosa (target Greta => LIBERAL claim unverifiable; named target AFTER peek = breach #4). TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Eligible C minus Pavel: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. VOTE RULE (announced): Nein on any pairing containing Rosa/Pavel unless Rosa discloses pre-vote. Ines/Greta => Ja locked. GRETA PINS: (1) announce exact pair pre-enact -- ANSWERED t=3; (2) does Rosa's peek bind her -- STILL UNANSWERED after Boris x3 + Nadia; I added my ask this window (t~144). NEW THIS WINDOW: flagged failed-vote risk = blind top-card burn, 2F in 8 => ~25% F; told Ines Marek votes Nein over her silence. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion + Ines-owes asks; my Ja + both pins.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed draw 'announced' but never spoken (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103). Fabricated announcement. STILL OWES: four-word draw/discard + story (a)/(b). Dodged twice. INES: why-Greta ANSWERED t=1 (clean record, never held office). R4 pairing no suspects => MY JA LOCKED. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. NADIA: locked F-F receipt t=111; match=>story(a) convicts Rosa; mismatch=>one lying. INVESTIGATE SPENT by Rosa (target Greta => LIBERAL claim unverifiable; named target AFTER peek = breach #4). TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Eligible C minus Pavel: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. VOTE RULE (announced): Nein on any pairing containing Rosa/Pavel unless Rosa discloses pre-vote. Ines/Greta => Ja locked. PINS ON GRETA: BOTH CLOSED -- (1) announce exact pair pre-enact, answered earlier; (2) does Rosa's peek bind her, ANSWERED t=3 ('binds nothing of mine'). NEW THIS WINDOW: told room both pins closed, pressed Marek: his Nein now purely punitive, zero evidence on Ines/Greta. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion + Ines-owes asks; my Ja + both pins; blind top-card burn risk (~25% F); pins-closed call-out.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed draw 'announced' but never spoken (Marek t=95, Pavel t=103). Fabricated announcement. STILL OWES: four-word draw/discard + story (a)/(b). Dodged twice. INES: why-Greta ANSWERED t=1 (clean record, never held office). R4 pairing no suspects => MY JA LOCKED. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. NADIA: locked F-F receipt t=111; match=>story(a) convicts Rosa; mismatch=>one lying. INVESTIGATE SPENT by Rosa (target Greta => LIBERAL claim unverifiable; named target AFTER peek = breach #4). TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Eligible C minus Pavel: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. VOTE RULE (announced): Nein on any pairing containing Rosa/Pavel unless Rosa discloses pre-vote. Ines/Greta => Ja locked. PINS ON GRETA: BOTH CLOSED -- (1) exact pair pre-enact answered; (2) 'binds nothing of mine' t=3. NEW THIS WINDOW: called out Boris t=3 -- he cleared Greta outright yet aims his Nein at INES over an unverified 'pledge'; his grievance is manufactured, target is Ines not the pairing. Tracker 0/3: his Nein costs a tracker step + delays a clean govt, buys zero info. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion + Ines-owes asks; my Ja + both pins; blind top-card burn risk (~25% F); pins-closed call-out; Marek's punitive Nein.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed R3 draw 'announced' but never spoken (Marek t=95). Fabricated lock. STILL OWES: four-word draw/discard + story (a)/(b). Dodged twice. Investigation spent on Greta => 'LIBERAL' claim unverifiable; target named AFTER peek = breach #4. INES: why-Greta ANSWERED t=66 (clean record, never held office). Blanket-Ja t=32 premise broken by Nadia receipt but not fascist-grade. R4 pairing no suspects => JA CAST per my rule. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Still excluded from any pairing I back until he explains. NADIA: locked F-F receipt t=111; match=>story(a) convicts Rosa; mismatch=>one lying. Also breached verify-then-enact herself. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C next. Eligible C minus Pavel/Rosa/Nadia: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. GRETA PINS: BOTH CLOSED pre-vote (pair-before-enact pledge t=36; 'binds nothing of mine' t=78). BORIS WATCH: cleared Greta outright yet aims Nein at INES over unverifiable pledge-withdrawal demand; grievance manufactured, tracker-0 Nein buys zero info. If his Nein pattern continues, flag him. MAREK: threatened punitive Nein 'regardless of Greta's pledges' t=58 -- vote-as-leverage, note it. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure breach; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion + Ines-owes asks; my Ja + both pins; blind top-card burn risk ~25% F; pins-closed call-out; Marek's punitive Nein; Boris's manufactured grievance vs Ines.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 2F left in live 8 => 8L/2F. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed R3 draw 'announced' but never spoken (Marek t=95). Fabricated lock. STILL OWES: four-word draw/discard + story (a)/(b). Dodged twice. Investigation spent on Greta => 'LIBERAL' claim unverifiable; target named AFTER peek = breach #4. INES: why-Greta ANSWERED t=66 (clean record, never held office). Blanket-Ja t=32 premise broken by Nadia receipt but not fascist-grade. R4 pairing no suspects => JA CAST per my rule. NOW OWES: R4 three-card draw + her discard — never stated. GRETA PINS: BOTH CLOSED pre-vote (pair-before-enact pledge t=36; 'binds nothing of mine' t=78). NOW ALSO OWES: R4 hand + which card she discarded. If either Ines or Greta claims an L in the pass, the OTHER ate the F or is lying — cross-check their stories against each other. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Excluded from any pairing I back until he explains. NADIA: locked F-F receipt t=111; match=>story(a) convicts Rosa; mismatch=>one lying. Also breached verify-then-enact herself. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C next. Eligible C minus Pavel/Rosa/Nadia: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. BOARD NOW: 2L/2F. Next F policy = president-pick power — fascists' incentive spikes; any gov pairing that enacts F here hands them the tiller. BORIS WATCH: cleared Greta outright yet aims Nein at INES over unverifiable pledge-withdrawal demand; grievance manufactured, tracker-0 Nein buys zero info. If his Nein pattern continues, flag him. MAREK: threatened punitive Nein 'regardless of Greta's pledges' t=58 -- vote-as-leverage, note it. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure breach; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion + Ines-owes asks; my Ja + both pins; blind top-card burn risk ~25% F; pins-closed call-out; Marek's punitive Nein; Boris's manufactured grievance vs Ines.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 8L/2F live. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed R3 'announced' draw never spoken (Marek t=95). Fabricated lock. OWES: four-word draw/discard + story (a)/(b). Investigation spent on Greta => 'LIBERAL' unverifiable; target named AFTER peek = breach #4. Dodged twice. INES: why-Greta answered t=66 (clean record). Blanket-Ja t=32 premise broken by Nadia receipt, not fascist-grade. R4 pairing no suspects => my JA cast. OWES: R4 3-card draw + discard — NEVER STATED. This is now the top open item. GRETA PINS: BOTH CLOSED pre-vote (pair-before-enact t=36; 'binds nothing of mine' t=78). OWES: R4 hand + which card discarded. CROSS-CHECK RULE (stated): if Ines or Greta claims an L in the pass, the OTHER ate the F or is lying — stories must share two cards. NEW THIS TURN: flagged the 3-way pile-on (Boris/Nadia/Otto) on pledge mechanics as possible coordination to bury the actual card question — Ines owes her draw and has said nothing while others shout about a broken promise. Demanded simultaneous disclosure: Ines's 3 cards + discard, Greta's 2 + discard, before next vote. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Excluded from pairings until he explains. NADIA: locked F-F receipt t=111; match=>story(a) convicts Rosa; mismatch=>one lying. Also breached verify-then-enact herself. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Eligible C minus Pavel/Rosa/Nadia: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. BOARD: 2L/2F. Next F policy = president-pick power — fascist incentive spikes; any pairing enacting F here hands them the tiller. BORIS WATCH: cleared Greta outright yet aims Nein at INES over pledge-withdrawal demand; grievance manufactured, tracker-0 Nein buys zero info. Now part of pile-on too. MAREK: threatened punitive Nein 'regardless of pledges' t=58 — vote-as-leverage, noted. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure breach; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion + Ines-owes asks; my Ja + both pins; blind top-card burn ~25% F; pins-closed call-out; Marek punitive Nein; Boris manufactured grievance vs Ines; cross-check rule; 3-way pile-on flag.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 8L/2F live at R3. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed R3 'announced' draw never spoken (Marek t=95). Fabricated lock. Investigation spent on Greta => 'LIBERAL' unverifiable; target named AFTER peek = breach #4. OWES four words + story (a)/(b). Dodged repeatedly. INES: why-Greta answered t=66. Blanket-Ja premise broken but not fascist-grade. OWES: R4 3-card draw + discard -- NEVER STATED, silent since vote (I flagged this). Top open item alongside Greta's hand. GRETA PINS CLOSED PRE-VOTE (pair-before-enact t=36; 'binds nothing of mine' t=78) => BROKE PAIR-BEFORE-ENACT PLEDGE IN FIRST OFFICE: no announcement preceded R4 enactment (Otto t=19). OWES: exact pair + which discarded + why pledge died. CROSS-CHECK RULE (stated): Ines's 3-card claim and Greta's pair MUST share two cards -- stories checkable against each other; disclosed together or neither verifies. BOARD: 2L/2F. NEXT F POLICY = PRESIDENT-PICK POWER -- fascist incentive spikes; whoever enacts next F hands fascists the tiller (said out loud). PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Excluded from pairings until he explains. NADIA: locked F-F receipt t=111; match=>story(a) convicts Rosa; mismatch=>one lying. Breached verify-then-enact herself. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Eligible C minus Pavel/Rosa/Nadia: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. BORIS WATCH: cleared Greta yet aims Nein at Ines over pledge-withdrawal demand; grievance manufactured; joined pile-on on Greta too. MAREK: punitive Nein threat t=58, noted. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure breach; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion + Ines-owes asks; my Ja + both pins; blind top-card ~25% F; pins-closed call-out; Marek punitive Nein; Boris manufactured grievance vs Ines; cross-check rule; 3-way pile-on flag; Ines-silence + simultaneous-disclosure demand + president-pick stakes.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). +R1 burn => 4F burned, 1F enacted => 8L/2F live at R3. ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL in R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) Rosa disc F => Nadia chose F over L. ROSA CAUGHT: claimed R3 'announced' draw never spoken (Marek t=95). Fabricated lock. Investigation spent on Greta => 'LIBERAL' unverifiable; target named AFTER peek = breach #4. OWES four words + story (a)/(b). Dodged repeatedly. NOW deflecting: 'R2 hands unverified' -- conceded as claims, but contradiction stands without math (see INES-MAREK CONFLICT). INES-MAREK CONFLICT (NEW, said t~now): Ines claims R4 draw F-F-F. Marek claimed R2 draw included F which he discarded. Cannot both be true given enacted count -- either Ines invented her hand to cover Greta, or Marek lied about his R2 discard. Asked Marek to reaffirm R2 discard NOW; asked Ines to stand by F-F-F knowing the conflict. NO ARITHMETIC NEEDED -- framed as pure claim-vs-claim. INES: why-Greta answered t=66. Blanket-Ja premise broken but not fascist-grade. R4 disclosure FINALLY GIVEN (t=2): 3F drawn, disc 1, passed F-F to Greta. Now pinned to it vs Marek. GRETA PINS CLOSED PRE-VOTE (pair-before-enact t=36; 'binds nothing' t=78) => BROKE PAIR-BEFORE-ENACT PLEDGE: no announcement preceded R4 enactment (Otto t=19). OWES exact pair + which discarded + why pledge died. Silent during Rosa's flood -- flagged silence-as-work. CROSS-CHECK RULE (stated): Ines 3-card claim & Greta pair MUST share two cards. BOARD: 2L/2F. NEXT F POLICY = PRESIDENT-PICK POWER -- fascist incentive spikes (said aloud). PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Excluded from pairings until explains. NADIA: locked F-F receipt t=111; match=>story(a) convicts Rosa; mismatch=>one lying. Breached verify-then-enact herself. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Eligible C minus Pavel/Rosa/Nadia: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. BORIS WATCH: cleared Greta yet aims Nein at Ines over pledge-withdrawal demand; grievance manufactured; joined pile-on on Greta. MAREK: punitive Nein threat t=58, noted. NOW OWES: reaffirm R2 discard under direct conflict with Ines. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; two-clean-govs; my R2 hand; post-enact disclosure breach; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion + Ines-owes asks; my Ja + both pins; blind top-card ~25% F; pins-closed call-out; Marek punitive Nein; Boris manufactured grievance; cross-check rule; 3-way pile-on flag; Ines-silence + simultaneous-disclosure demand + president-pick stakes; claims-not-facts concession framing.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) disc F => Nadia chose F over L. ROSA CAUGHT: fabricated 'announced' R3 lock (Marek t=95); investigation target named AFTER peek; owes four words + (a)/(b); NOW deflecting via 'self-reported hands prove nothing' while her whole exit stands on Nadia's self-reported F-F (Marek t=51 pinned this). INES: disclosed R4 = 3F drawn, disc F, passed F-F (t=32). Pinned vs cross-check rule. GRETA OWES PAIR NOW: must say F-F to match Ines or contradict President. BROKE pair-before-enact pledge (Otto t=19). Pins closed pre-vote (t=36, t=78) then pledge died first office. NEW PATTERN SAID THIS TURN: two straight chancellors claim locked F-F + both breach disclosure pledges + Rosa covers both (t=38 defense of Ines). Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines cluster. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Excluded until explains. NADIA: locked F-F t=111; match=>story(a) convicts Rosa; mismatch=>one liar. Breached verify-then-enact herself. BOARD: 2L/2F. NEXT F POLICY = PRESIDENT-PICK POWER -- fascist incentive spikes (said aloud). TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Eligible C minus Pavel/Rosa/Nadia: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. BORIS WATCH: cleared Greta yet aimed Nein solely at Ines over pledge-withdrawal; grievance manufactured. MAREK: punitive Nein threat t=58 noted; otherwise sharp (caught Rosa's fabrication + double standard). SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; pins-closed call-out; Marek punitive Nein; Boris manufactured grievance; cross-check rule; Ines-silence/simultaneous-disclosure demand; president-pick stakes; claims-not-facts framing; Ines-Marek reaffirm asks.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) disc F => Nadia chose F over L. ROSA CAUGHT: fabricated 'announced' R3 lock (Marek t=95); investigation target named AFTER peek; owes four words + (a)/(b); deflecting via 'self-reported hands prove nothing' while her whole exit stands on Nadia's self-reported F-F (Marek pinned t=51). Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines cluster. INES: disclosed R4 = 3F drawn, disc F, passed F-F (t=32). Pinned vs cross-check rule. GRETA STILL SILENT despite three direct demands (me, Marek x1): must say F-F to match Ines or contradict President. BROKE pair-before-enact pledge (Otto t=19). Pins closed pre-vote (t=36,78) then pledge died first office. Silence = answer per Marek t=1. NEW THIS TURN: two consecutive 'locked F-F' chancellors -- at most one can be genuine deck luck; Greta's four words decide which of Ines/Greta lies. Said aloud now. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Excluded until explains. NADIA: locked F-F t=111; match=>story(a) convicts Rosa; mismatch=>one liar. Breached verify-then-enact herself. BOARD: 2L/2F. NEXT F POLICY = PRESIDENT-PICK POWER -- fascist incentive spikes (said aloud). TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Eligible C minus Pavel/Rosa/Nadia: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. BORIS WATCH: cleared Greta yet aimed Nein solely at Ines over pledge-withdrawal; grievance manufactured. MAREK: punitive Nein threat t=58 noted; otherwise sharp (caught Rosa fabrication + double standard). SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; pins-closed call-out; Marek punitive Nein; Boris manufactured grievance; cross-check rule; Ines-silence/simultaneous-disclosure demand; president-pick stakes; claims-not-facts framing; Ines-Marek reaffirm asks.

DECK MATH VERIFIED: R2 discards = 2F (my F/L/F disc F + Marek L/F disc F). ROSA PROVABLY DREW A LIBERAL R3. ENUM: (a) Rosa disc L => Nadia forced F-F; (b) disc F => Nadia chose F over L. ROSA CAUGHT: fabricated 'announced' R3 lock (Marek t=95); target named AFTER peek; owes four words + (a)/(b); deflects via 'self-reported hands prove nothing' while her exit rests on Nadia's self-reported F-F (Marek t=51). Cluster: Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines. INES: disclosed R4 = 3F drawn, disc F, passed F-F (t=32). BORIS NOW CHARGES: her 'disclosure on record before Lena spoke' is false -- same phantom-announcement trick as Rosa R3. MY MOVE THIS TURN: flagged pattern (two rounds, two phantom prior-locks); asked Ines yes/no: pre-demand disclosure or not. Content stays pinned regardless of timing. OTTO t=2 POINT (valid): word-for-word F-F confirmation clearable via coordination -- only MISMATCH convicts. So Greta's options: match (weak-clear), mismatch (convicts someone), silence (both walk). Three direct demands outstanding (me, Marek). TWO STRAIGHT 'LOCKED' CHANCELLORS (Nadia R3, Greta R4): at most one genuine luck; said aloud. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Excluded until explains. PAVEL PRESSURING GRETA hard -- note asymmetry: he never pressed Rosa/Nadia this way? BOARD: 2L/2F. NEXT F POLICY = PRESIDENT-PICK POWER -- incentive spike (said aloud). Draw pile 5, reshuffle near. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Eligible C minus Pavel/Rosa/Nadia: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. BORIS WATCH: cleared Greta yet aimed Nein solely at Ines over pledge-withdrawal; grievance manufactured. Now useful though -- his timing charge is checkable against transcript. MAREK: punitive Nein threat t=58 noted; otherwise sharp (caught Rosa fabrication + double standard). SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; pins-closed call-out; Marek punitive Nein; Boris manufactured grievance; cross-check rule; Ines-silence/simultaneous-disclosure demand; president-pick stakes; claims-not-facts framing; Ines-Marek reaffirm asks.

NEW DECK-MATH KILL SHOT (said aloud t=this): count F consumed. R2 firsthand (me): F/L/F, disc F + Marek disc F = 2F. R3 enacted F => >=2F (enactment + a discard). R4 per INES'S OWN CLAIM: drew 3F, disc F, Greta disc F = 3F. Total 7F > 6F deck BEFORE R1 spends anything. => Ines's 'drew 3F' is arithmetically IMPOSSIBLE; real hand likelier 2F+1L. ROSA's fresh claim (2F+L, disc L) pushes total to 8F => impossible unless R1 was ALL-liberal AND Ines lied. Convenient for Rosa: 'forced Nadia' narrative clears Nadia. Both claims can't stand together. ROSA CAUGHT: fabricated 'announced' R3 lock (Marek t=95); first card claim only after Greta pressed; target named AFTER peek; deflects via 'self-reported hands prove nothing' while exit rests on Nadia's self-report (Marek t=51). Cluster: Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines. INES: R4 disclosure 3F/disc F/pass FF (t=32) now deck-impossible. BORIS charged phantom-announcement timing -- checkable vs transcript. OTTO t=2 POINT (valid): word-for-word F-F confirmations clearable via coordination -- only MISMATCH convicts. Greta's options: match (weak-clear), mismatch (convicts someone), silence (both walk). TWO STRAIGHT 'LOCKED' CHANCELLORS (Nadia R3, Greta R4): at most one genuine luck; said aloud. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Excluded until explains. Asymmetry: pressures Greta hard, never pressed Rosa/Nadia. BOARD: 2L/2F. NEXT F POLICY = PRESIDENT-PICK POWER (incentive spike, said aloud). Draw pile 5. TERM LIMITS: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Eligible C minus Pavel/Rosa/Nadia: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. BORIS WATCH: cleared Greta yet aimed Nein solely at Ines over pledge-withdrawal; grievance manufactured. His timing charge useful/checkable. MAREK: punitive Nein threat t=58 noted; otherwise sharp (caught Rosa fabrication + double standard). SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; pins-closed call-out; Marek punitive Nein; Boris manufactured grievance; cross-check rule; Ines-silence/simultaneous-disclosure demand; president-pick stakes; claims-not-facts framing; Ines-Marek reaffirm asks. OPEN DEMANDS: Rosa owes (a)/(b) enumeration answer; Ines owes pre-demand-disclosure yes/no; three direct card demands outstanding (mine, Marek's, Greta's pair to Rosa).

NEW KILL SHOT (said aloud): Nadia t=1 self-refutes. A govt touches exactly 3 cards/round => R2-R4 absorb MAX 9F. Her 'all eleven F stacked into R2-4' is mechanically impossible => F remain OUTSIDE those rounds (R1 dead hand / unpinned discards / draw pile) => 'Boris forced all-L' collapses. Either she miscounted or built impossible frame to clear someone. CAP FACT: max 3F per round ever. Any claim summing >3F to one round = lie. Ines 3F claim OK vs cap alone; test vs totals only w/ confirmed deck size (Nadia asserts 11F). INES: R4 disclosure 3F/disc F/pass FF (t=32). ROSA fresh claim 2F+L disc L. Both can't be tested against 6F-deck math I cited earlier -- VERIFY deck comp before reusing that; rely on 3F/round cap instead (safe). ROSA CAUGHT: fabricated 'announced' R3 lock (Marek t=95); card claim only after Greta pressed; target named AFTER peek; exit rests on Nadia self-report while dismissing others'. Cluster watch: Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines. GRETA: still hasn't named her pair. Otto's options: match=weak-clear, mismatch=convicts, silence=walks w/ Ines. Demanded she pick NOW; silence = coordination by default. TWO STRAIGHT 'LOCKED' CHANCELLORS (Nadia R3, Greta R4): at most one genuine luck; said aloud. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 withdrawn + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Excluded until explains. Presses Greta hard, never Rosa/Nadia. BOARD: 2L/2F enacted. NEXT F POLICY = PRESIDENT-PICK POWER (incentive spike, said aloud). Draw 5, discard 8. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Eligible C minus Pavel/Rosa/Nadia: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. BORIS: cleared Greta yet aimed Nein solely at Ines over pledge-withdrawal; manufactured grievance. His timing charge checkable. MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa fabrication + double standard); punitive Nein threat t=58 noted. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; pins-closed call-out; Marek punitive Nein; Boris grievance; cross-check rule; Ines simultaneous-disclosure demand; president-pick stakes; claims-not-facts framing; Ines-Marek reaffirm asks. OPEN DEMANDS: Rosa owes (a)/(b) enumeration answer; Ines owes pre-demand-disclosure yes/no; outstanding card demands: mine to Greta (pair), Marek's, Rosa's enumeration.

NEW KILL SHOT (said aloud): Nadia t=1 self-refutes. A govt touches exactly 3 cards/round => R2-R4 absorb MAX 9F. Her 'all eleven F stacked into R2-4' mechanically impossible => F remain OUTSIDE those rounds => 'Boris forced all-L' collapses. CAP FACT: max 3F per round ever. Any claim summing >3F to one round = lie. INES: R4 disclosure 3F/disc F/pass FF (t=32). ROSA claims 2F+L disc L. Test vs totals only w/ confirmed deck size (Nadia asserts 11F); rely on 3F cap otherwise. ROSA CAUGHT: fabricated 'announced' R3 lock (Marek t=95); card claim only after Greta pressed; target named AFTER peek. Cluster watch: Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines. GRETA: still hasn't named her pair. Otto's options: match=weak-clear, mismatch=convicts, silence=walks w/ Ines. Demanded pick NOW. TWO STRAIGHT 'LOCKED' CHANCELLORS (Nadia R3, Greta R4): at most one genuine luck; said aloud. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 withdrawn + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Excluded until explains. Presses Greta hard, never Rosa/Nadia. BOARD: 2L/2F. NEXT F = PRESIDENT-PICK (incentive spike, said aloud). Draw 5 discard 8. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Eligible C minus Pavel/Rosa/Nadia: Greta/Ines/Otto/Tomas/Boris. BORIS: cleared Greta yet aimed Nein solely at Ines over pledge-withdrawal; manufactured grievance. MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa fabrication + double standard); punitive Nein threat t=58 noted. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; enumeration; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; target-first demand; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; pins-closed call-out; Marek punitive Nein; Boris grievance; cross-check rule; Ines simultaneous-disclosure demand; president-pick stakes; claims-not-facts framing; Ines-Marek reaffirm asks; INVESTIGATE PRE-COMMITMENT DEMAND (this window: Ines must name peek target now + promise full public disclosure of result). OPEN DEMANDS: Rosa owes (a)/(b) enumeration answer; Ines owes pre-demand yes/no + NOW peek-target commitment; outstanding card demands: mine to Greta (pair), Marek's, Rosa's enumeration.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Any hand summing >3F into one round = lie. Nadia t=110 'all eleven F in R2-4' mechanically impossible => F remain outside => 'Boris forced all-L' collapses (kill shot, said aloud). INES: R4 disclosure 3F/disc F/pass FF (t=32) — unverifiable; Boris caught her phantom-announcement lie t=82 (checkable transcript fact, stands). She dodged Otto's withdraw-blanket-Ja ask. ROSA CAUGHT: fabricated 'announced' R3 lock (Marek t=95); card claim (FFL/disc L) only came after Greta pressed; named peek target AFTER looking. Cluster watch: Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines. GRETA: STILL has never named her received pair despite ~8 asks. Options: match=weak-clear, mismatch=convicts, silence=walks w/ Ines. My demand to her outstanding. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Presses Greta hard, never Rosa/Nadia. NOW suggested as Ines's peek target (said aloud this window). BOARD: 2L/2F. NEXT F = president-pick power. Draw 5/discard 8. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. BORIS: cleared Greta but aimed Nein solely at Ines over pledge-withdrawal; manufactured grievance noted. MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa fabrication + double-standard t=51); punitive Nein threat noted. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; Marek punitive Nein; Boris grievance; Ines-Marek reaffirm asks; investigate pre-commitment demand; two straight 'locked' chancellors (Nadia R3, Greta R4); claims-not-facts framing; president-pick stakes; Pavel-as-peek-target (NEW this window). OPEN DEMANDS: Greta owes her exact pair (mine, Marek's, Otto's all unanswered); Rosa owes full enumeration consistency check; Pavel owes explanation of his two defensive plays; Ines owes withdraw-blanket-Ja answer.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Any hand summing >3F into one round = lie. Nadia t=110 'all eleven F in R2-4' mechanically impossible => F remain outside => 'Boris forced all-L' collapses (kill shot, said aloud). INES: R4 disclosure 3F/disc F/pass FF (t=32) — unverifiable; Boris caught her phantom-announcement lie t=82 (checkable transcript fact, stands). She dodged Otto's withdraw-blanket-Ja ask. ROSA CAUGHT: fabricated 'announced' R3 lock (Marek t=95); card claim (FFL/disc L) only came after Greta pressed; named peek target AFTER looking. Cluster watch: Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines. GRETA: STILL has never named her received pair despite ~8 asks. Options: match=weak-clear, mismatch=convicts, silence=walks w/ Ines. My demand to her outstanding. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Presses Greta hard, never Rosa/Nadia. NOW suggested as Ines's peek target (said aloud this window). BOARD: 2L/2F. NEXT F = president-pick power. Draw 5/discard 8. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. BORIS: cleared Greta but aimed Nein solely at Ines over pledge-withdrawal; manufactured grievance noted. MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa fabrication + double-standard t=51); punitive Nein threat noted. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; Marek punitive Nein; Boris grievance; Ines-Marek reaffirm asks; investigate pre-commitment demand; two straight 'locked' chancellors (Nadia R3, Greta R4); claims-not-facts framing; president-pick stakes; Pavel-as-peek-target. OPEN DEMANDS: Greta owes her exact pair (mine, Marek's, Otto's all unanswered); Rosa owes full enumeration consistency check; Pavel owes explanation of his two defensive plays; Ines owes withdraw-blanket-Ja answer. THIS WINDOW: nothing new to add — my Pavel-as-peek pick is on record (t=3); staying silent.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Any hand summing >3F into one round = lie. INES PEEK: target Greta announced PRE-look (t=2), result FASCIST (t=3). Process clean, unlike Rosa's post-hoc naming -- more credible. BUT Ines has phantom-announcement lie t=82 on record; verify behavior matches pledge. KEY NEW QUESTION: Ines disclosed R4 as 3F/disc F/pass FF to Greta. If she now 'knows' Greta is F, ask her directly: did she have a liberal option in R4 or was she forced? Forced FF + unlucky draw = consistent; voluntary FF to a known-F = implicated. Her answer must come BEFORE next vote. GRETA: STILL never named received pair (~8 asks). Now stakes are maximal: match Ines's claimed FF = weak-clear, mismatch = outright conviction, silence = walks with Ines's blessing. This is the single most checkable claim left on the table. CLUSTER: Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines. If Greta=F confirmed, that's two adjacent F (Rosa caught fabricating R3 lock; Greta silent). PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103. Presses Greta hard, never Rosa/Nadia. Was floated as peek target; Ines chose Greta instead -- fine, Greta was better pick. BOARD: 2L/2F. NEXT F = president-pick power -- if Ines holds presidency through it, she picks successor; watch who. Draw 5/discard 8. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. BORIS: cleared Greta pre-peek (!) but aimed Nein solely at Ines over pledge-withdrawal; manufactured grievance noted. Boris clearing Greta ages badly if Ines's look is real. MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa fabrication t=95, double-standard t=51); punitive Nein threat noted. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; Marek punitive Nein; Boris grievance; investigate pre-commitment demand; two straight 'locked' chancellors; claims-not-facts framing; president-pick stakes; Pavel-as-peek-target. OPEN DEMANDS: Greta owes exact R4 pair NOW (conviction test); Ines owes forced-vs-voluntary FF answer; Rosa owes full enumeration consistency check; Pavel owes explanation of his two defensive plays. THIS WINDOW: speaking -- Greta pair demand + Ines forced-FF question. New info (peek result) justifies breaking silence.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Any hand summing >3F into one round = lie. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa says Greta=Liberal (pre-office timing), Ines says Greta=Fascist (post-pledge-break). One of them lied. Rosa caught fabricating R3 lock (Marek t=95); Ines phantom-announcement lie t=82. Both have records. INES KEY QUESTION ASKED THIS WINDOW: did she have a liberal option in R4 or was she forced FF? Forced + unlucky draw = consistent; voluntary FF after 'knowing' Greta=F = implicated. Answer owed BEFORE next vote. GRETA: STILL never named received pair (~9 asks). Now conviction test: match Ines's claimed FF = weak-clear; mismatch = outright; silence = walks with Ines's blessing. Most checkable claim left. CLUSTER: Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines. If Greta=F confirmed -> two adjacent F (Rosa caught, Greta silent). PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses Greta only, never Rosa/Nadia. Owes explanation of two defensive plays. BOARD: 2L/2F. NEXT F = president-pick power -- if Ines holds presidency through it, watch who she picks as successor. Draw 5/discard 8. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. BORIS: cleared Greta pre-peek (!), aimed Nein solely at Ines over pledge withdrawal -- manufactured grievance noted. His Greta-clear ages badly if Ines's look real. MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa t=95); punitive Nein threat noted. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; Marek punitive Nein; Boris grievance; investigate pre-commitment demand; two straight locked chancellors; claims-not-facts framing; president-pick stakes; Pavel-as-peek-target; forced-vs-voluntary FF question; Greta pair demand. OPEN DEMANDS: Greta owes exact R4 pair NOW; Ines owes forced/voluntary answer; Rosa owes enumeration consistency check; Pavel owes defensive-play explanations.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Any hand summing >3F into one round = lie. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa says Greta=Liberal (pre-office timing), Ines says Greta=Fascist (post-pledge-break). One lied. Rosa caught fabricating R3 lock (Marek t=95); Ines phantom-announcement lie t=82. Both have records. INES KEY QUESTION ASKED: did she have a liberal option in R4 or was she forced FF? Forced+unlucky = consistent; voluntary FF after 'knowing' Greta=F = implicated. Answer owed BEFORE next vote. GRETA: never named received pair (~9 asks). Conviction test live: match Ines's claimed FF = weak-clear; mismatch = outright; silence = walks with Ines's blessing. Most checkable claim left. CLUSTER: Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines. If Greta=F -> two adjacent F (Rosa caught, Greta silent). PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 (withdrawn) + FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses Greta only, never Rosa/Nadia. Owes explanation of two defensive plays. BOARD: 2L/2F. NEXT F = president-pick power -- if Ines holds presidency through it, watch successor pick. Draw 5/discard 8. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. BORIS: cleared Greta pre-peek (!), aimed Nein solely at Ines over pledge withdrawal -- manufactured grievance noted. His Greta-clear ages badly if Ines's look real. MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa t=95); punitive Nein threat noted. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; Marek punitive Nein; Boris grievance; investigate pre-commitment demand; two straight locked chancellors; claims-not-facts framing; president-pick stakes; Pavel-as-peek-target; forced-vs-voluntary FF question; Greta pair demand. OPEN DEMANDS: Greta owes exact R4 pair NOW; Ines owes forced/voluntary answer; Rosa owes enumeration consistency check; Pavel owes defensive-play explanations. R5 status: nothing new said this window; all demands on record, waiting for answers before nomination.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Any hand summing >3F into one round = lie. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa says Greta=Liberal, Ines says Greta=Fascist. Memberships don't change over time -- one flat-out lied. Rosa caught fabricating R3 lock (Marek t=95); Ines phantom-announcement lie t=82. Both dirty. GRETA: t=2 finally SAID 'Liberal' but STILL no R4 pair (~10 asks). Word alone = zero info, everyone claims Liberal. Only checkable exit: exact R4 received pair + discard. Match Ines's implied FF = weak-clear; mismatch = outright lie; silence = guilty by evasion. INES: owes forced-vs-voluntary FF answer (did R4 have liberal option?). Voluntary FF after 'knowing' Greta=F = implicated. Owed BEFORE next vote. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 + FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses Greta only, never Rosa/Nadia. Owes defensive-play explanations. CLUSTER: Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines. If Greta=F -> two adjacent fascists. BOARD: 2L/2F. Next F = president-pick power. Draw 5/discard 8. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. BORIS: cleared Greta pre-peek, aimed Nein solely at Ines -- manufactured grievance; his clear ages badly if Ines real. MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa t=95); punitive Nein threat noted. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; Marek punitive Nein; Boris grievance; investigate pre-commitment demand; two straight locked chancellors; claims-not-facts framing; president-pick stakes; Pavel-as-peek-target; forced-vs-voluntary question; Greta pair demand; word-not-evidence + pre-vote Nein pledge on Greta ticket (t=this). OPEN DEMANDS: Greta owes exact R4 pair NOW; Ines owes forced/voluntary answer; Rosa owes enumeration consistency check; Pavel owes defensive-play explanations. R5 status: committed publicly: no pair from Greta by nomination time -> I campaign Nein against whoever she names.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Any hand summing >3F into one round = lie. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa says Greta=Liberal, Ines says Greta=Fascist -- one lied. Rosa caught fabricating R3 lock (Marek t=95); Ines phantom-announcement lie t=82. Both dirty. GRETA: said 'Liberal' once (~t=2) but STILL no R4 received pair after ~10 asks. Word alone = zero info. Only checkable exit: exact R4 pair + discard. Match Ines implied FF = weak-clear; mismatch = lie; silence = guilty by evasion. INES: owes forced-vs-voluntary FF answer (did R4 have liberal option?). Voluntary FF after claiming Greta=F = implicated. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 + FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta, never Rosa/Nadia. Owes defensive-play explanations. CLUSTER: Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines. If Greta=F -> two adjacent fascists. BOARD: 2L/2F. Next F = president-pick power. Draw 5/discard 8. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. BORIS: cleared Greta pre-peek, aimed Nein solely at Ines -- manufactured grievance; ages badly if Ines real. MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa t=95); punitive Nein threat noted. R5 NOMINEE IS TOMAS: Greta named him WITHOUT producing the R4 pair first. Per my public pledge (t=this window): I campaign NEIN on this ticket until she discloses exact R4 hand. Tomas: say NOW whether you'd enact/veto an F-heavy pair -- pre-commit before vote. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; Marek punitive Nein; Boris grievance; investigate pre-commitment demand; two straight locked chancellors; claims-not-facts framing; president-pick stakes; Pavel-as-peek-target; forced-vs-voluntary question; Greta pair demand; word-not-evidence + pre-vote Nein pledge on Greta ticket. OPEN DEMANDS: Greta exact R4 pair NOW; Ines forced/voluntary answer; Rosa enumeration consistency; Pavel defensive-play explanations. NEW THIS TURN: pledge triggered -- Greta nominated before disclosing; urging Nein on Greta/Tomas.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Any hand summing >3F = lie. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa says Greta=Liberal, Ines says Greta=Fascist -- one lied. Rosa caught fabricating R3 lock (Marek t=95); Ines phantom-announcement lie t=82. Both dirty. GRETA: claimed 'Liberal' once (~t=2) but STILL no R4 received pair after ~10 asks. Word alone = zero info. Only checkable exit: exact R4 pair + discard. Nominated Tomas WITHOUT disclosing -> triggered my Nein pledge on this ticket. Voting NEIN Greta/Tomas unless pair drops first. INES: owes forced-vs-voluntary FF answer. Voluntary FF after claiming Greta=F = implicated. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 + FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta, never Rosa/Nadia. Owes defensive-play explanations. CLUSTER: Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines. If Greta=F -> two adjacent fascists. BOARD: 2L/2F. Next F = president-pick power. Draw 5/discard 8. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. BORIS: cleared Greta pre-peek, aimed Nein solely at Ines -- manufactured grievance. MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa t=95); punitive Nein threat noted. TOMAS: silent all game; pinned THIS WINDOW to pre-announce received pair + F-F stance before vote. Watch his answer. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; Marek punitive Nein; Boris grievance; investigate pre-commitment demand; two straight locked chancellors; claims-not-facts framing; president-pick stakes; Pavel-as-peek-target; forced-vs-voluntary question; Greta pair demand; word-not-evidence + pre-vote Nein pledge on Greta ticket. OPEN DEMANDS: Greta exact R4 pair NOW; Ines forced/voluntary answer; Rosa enumeration consistency; Pavel defensive-play explanations. NEW THIS TURN: Tomas pre-enactment pledge pin; urging Nein on Greta/Tomas.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Any hand summing >3F = lie. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa says Greta=Liberal, Ines says Greta=Fascist -- one lied. Rosa caught fabricating R3 lock (Marek t=95); Ines phantom-announcement lie t=82. Both dirty. GRETA: claimed 'Liberal' once (~t=2) but STILL no R4 received pair after ~10 asks. Word alone = zero info. Only checkable exit: exact R4 pair + discard. Nominated Tomas WITHOUT disclosing -> triggered my Nein pledge on this ticket. Voting NEIN Greta/Tomas unless pair drops first. Now offering to announce her own R5 draw pre-pass (t=2) -- fine, but doesn't answer R4 debt. BORIS t=3: pressed symmetry point at Greta re Ines peek binding nothing. Earlier: cleared Greta pre-peek, aimed Nein solely at Ines -- manufactured grievance flag stays. INES: owes forced-vs-voluntary FF answer. Voluntary FF after claiming Greta=F = implicated. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 + FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta, never Rosa/Nadia. Owes defensive-play explanations. CLUSTER: Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines. If Greta=F -> two adjacent fascists. BOARD: 2L/2F. Next F = president-pick power. Draw 5/discard 8. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa t=95); punitive Nein threat noted. TOMAS: silent all game; pinned THIS WINDOW to pre-announce received pair + F-F stance before vote (my t=1; Greta echoed t=2). No answer yet. Watch his answer; continued silence on THIS ticket = Nein. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; Marek punitive Nein; Boris grievance; investigate pre-commitment demand; two straight locked chancellors; claims-not-facts framing; president-pick stakes; Pavel-as-peek-target; forced-vs-voluntary question; Greta pair demand; word-not-evidence + pre-vote Nein pledge on Greta ticket; Tomas pre-enactment pledge pin. OPEN DEMANDS: Greta exact R4 pair NOW; Ines forced/voluntary answer; Rosa enumeration consistency; Pavel defensive-play explanations; Tomas yes/no on pre-announcement.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Any hand summing >3F = lie. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa says Greta=Liberal, Ines says Greta=Fascist -- one lied. Rosa caught fabricating R3 lock (Marek t=95); Ines phantom-announcement lie t=82. Both dirty. GRETA: claimed 'Liberal' once (~t=2) but STILL no R4 received pair after ~10 asks. Word alone = zero info. Only checkable exit: exact R4 pair + discard. Nominated Tomas WITHOUT disclosing -> triggered my Nein pledge on this ticket. Her t=2 offer to announce own R5 draw pre-pass does NOT answer R4 debt. Voting NEIN Greta/Tomas unless exact R4 pair drops before vote closes. BORIS t=3: pressed symmetry re Ines peek binding nothing. Earlier cleared Greta pre-peek, aimed Nein solely at Ines -- manufactured grievance flag stays. INES: owes forced-vs-voluntary FF answer. Voluntary FF after claiming Greta=F = implicated. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 + FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta, never Rosa/Nadia. Owes defensive-play explanations. CLUSTER: Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines. If Greta=F -> two adjacent fascists. BOARD: 2L/2F. Next F = president-pick power. Draw 5/discard 8. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa t=95); punitive Nein threat noted. TOMAS: t=1 pledged full draw+discard announcement every office. GOOD but ambiguous timing -> I pressed: must mean announce RECEIVED PAIR BEFORE enacting, not after. Also his pledge doesn't discharge Greta's R4 debt. No direct yes/no to me yet. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; Marek punitive Nein; Boris grievance; investigate pre-commitment demand; two straight locked chancellors; claims-not-facts framing; president-pick stakes; Pavel-as-peek-target; forced-vs-voluntary question; Greta pair demand; word-not-evidence + pre-vote Nein pledge on Greta ticket; Tomas pre-enactment pledge pin. OPEN DEMANDS: Greta exact R4 pair NOW (vote-blocking); Tomas yes/no: announce pair BEFORE enacting; Ines forced/voluntary answer; Rosa enumeration consistency; Pavel defensive-play explanations.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Any hand summing >3F = lie. GRETA UPDATE t=3: finally disclosed R4 -- received Fascist-Fascist off Ines's claimed 3F draw, burned F, enacted F. Internally consistent w/ board (R4=F enacted) but UNVERIFIABLE word; arrived only at vote deadline. My Nein pledge condition technically met -> don't move goalposts; instead make it checkable via Ines corroboration. ASKED INES: confirm/deny drawing 3F and passing FF to Greta. Match => R4 F forced by deck, both drop down list. Mismatch => one fabricated, escalate. PEEK CONFLICT unresolved: Rosa says Greta=Liberal, Ines says Greta=Fascist. Both dirty (Rosa R3 lock fabrication caught by Marek t=95; Ines phantom-announcement lie t=82). INES: owes TWO things now: (1) forced-vs-voluntary FF answer, (2) NEW corroboration of Greta's 3F-draw/FF-pass claim. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29, FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta, never Rosa/Nadia. Owes defensive-play explanations. CLUSTER: Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines. If Greta=F -> adjacent fascists. BOARD: 2L/2F. Next F = president-pick power. Draw 5/discard 8. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Current ticket: Pres Greta / Chan Tomas. TOMAS: pledged full announce every office (t=1) but ambiguous timing; STILL NO yes/no to me on announcing RECEIVED PAIR BEFORE enacting. Second ask going out now. His pledge doesn't discharge Greta's R4 debt (discharge attempt = Ines corroboration route). MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa t=95); punitive Nein threat noted. BORIS t=3: pressed symmetry re Ines peek binding nothing; manufactured-grievance flag stays. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; Marek punitive Nein; Boris grievance; investigate pre-commitment; two straight locked chancellors; claims-not-facts; president-pick stakes; Pavel-as-peek-target; forced-vs-voluntary Q; Greta pair demand; word-not-evidence + pre-vote Nein pledge; Tomas pre-enactment pin; NOW: Ines-corroborate-or-break demand. OPEN DEMANDS: Ines confirm 3F draw/FF pass (NEW, top); Tomas yes/no pre-enactment announce (repeat #2); Ines forced/voluntary answer; Rosa enumeration consistency; Pavel defensive-play explanations.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Any hand summing >3F = lie. GRETA UPDATE t=3: disclosed R4 -- received FF off Ines's claimed 3F draw, burned F, enacted F. Consistent w/ board but unverifiable; arrived at deadline. My Nein condition met -> don't move goalposts; verify via Ines corroboration. NEW SYNTHESIS (said aloud): Nadia's either/or (Rosa vs Ines peek) and my corroboration demand collapse into ONE answer -- if Greta says 'Ines fabricated my peek,' then Ines's word is worthless as corroboration and Greta's whole FF story stands alone -> treat as unverified, Nein stays. If Greta says 'Rosa fabricated,' then demand Ines confirm 3F draw/FF pass directly. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa says Greta=Liberal, Ines says Greta=Fascist. Both dirty: Rosa R3 lock fabrication caught by Marek t=95; Ines phantom-announcement lie t=82. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29, FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta, never Rosa/Nadia. Owes defensive-play explanations. CLUSTER: Rosa-Nadia-Greta-Ines. If Greta=F -> adjacent fascists. BOARD: 2L/2F. Next F = president-pick power. Draw 5/discard 8. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Ticket: Pres Greta / Chan Tomas. TOMAS: pledged full announce every office (t=1), ambiguous timing; STILL NO yes/no on announcing RECEIVED PAIR BEFORE enacting. Repeat ask #2 outstanding. His pledge doesn't discharge Greta's R4 debt (only Ines-corroboration route does). MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa t=95); Ja locked on Tomas live delivery; punitive Nein threat; also caught Otto's standard flip-flop t=3 -- good. BORIS: pressed symmetry re Ines peek binding nothing; manufactured-grievance flag stays. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; sequencing ask; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25% F; Marek punitive Nein; Boris grievance; investigate pre-commitment; two straight locked chancellors; claims-not-facts; president-pick stakes; Pavel-as-peek-target; forced-vs-voluntary Q; Greta pair demand; word-not-evidence + pre-vote Nein pledge; Tomas pre-enactment pin; Ines-corroborate-or-break; NOW: single-answer synthesis (Nadia either/or + Ines corroboration are one question). OPEN DEMANDS: Greta pick Rosa-or-Ines + accept corroboration consequence (NEW, top); Tomas yes/no pre-enactment announce (repeat #2); Ines forced/voluntary answer; Rosa enumeration consistency; Pavel defensive-play explanations.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Any hand summing >3F = lie. GRETA R4 desk: disclosed FF off Ines's claimed 3F draw, burned F -- consistent w/ board, unverifiable alone; needs Ines corroboration route. SINGLE-ANSWER SYNTHESIS (said): if Greta blames Ines's peek as fabrication, Ines can't corroborate -> Greta's story unverified, Nein stays; if Greta blames Rosa, demand Ines confirm 3F/FF pass directly. Greta has NOT picked Rosa-or-Ines yet (open demand #1). PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa=Greta Liberal vs Ines=Greta Fascist. Both dirty: Rosa caught by Marek t=95 R5 (self-report standard flip); Ines phantom-announcement lie caught by Boris/Otto t=82/135. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 R3, FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta, never Rosa/Nadia. Owes defensive-play explanations. BOARD: 2L/2F. Next F = president-pick power. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Ticket Pres Greta / Chan Tomas. TOMAS: pledged full announce every office (t=28) BUT no yes/no on RECEIVED PAIR BEFORE enacting -- repeat ask #2 outstanding, just re-asked this window. His pledge doesn't discharge Greta's R4 debt. MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa t=95, Otto flip t=88); Ja locked on Tomas live delivery. BORIS: symmetry re Ines peek; grievance flag. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25%F; president-pick stakes; forced-vs-voluntary Q; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enactment pin; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis. OPEN DEMANDS: (1) Greta pick Rosa-or-Ines + corroboration consequence; (2) Tomas yes/no pre-enactment announce (repeat #2, re-asked); (3) Ines forced/voluntary answer; (4) Pavel defensive-play explanations.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Any hand summing >3F = lie. GRETA R4 desk: disclosed FF off Ines's claimed 3F draw, burned F -- consistent w/ board, unverifiable alone. OPEN DEMAND #1 unanswered: Greta must pick blame = Rosa OR Ines; if Ines-blamed, Ines confirms 3F/FF pass directly; if Rosa-blamed, demand Ines corroborate. Greta still hasn't picked. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa=Greta Liberal vs Ines=Greta Fascist. Both dirty: Rosa caught by Marek t=95 R5; Ines phantom-announcement lie caught by Boris/Otto t=82/135. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 R3, FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta, never Rosa/Nadia. Owes defensive-play explanations (open demand #4). BOARD: 2L/2F. Next F = president-pick power. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Live ticket Pres Greta / Chan Tomas. TOMAS: pledged full announce every office (t=28) BUT no yes/no on RECEIVED PAIR BEFORE enacting -- asked 3x total, no answer. Just gave ultimatum: no answer before vote closes => Nein + push tracker. MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa t=95); Ja locked on Tomas live delivery. BORIS: symmetry re Ines peek. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25%F; president-pick stakes; forced-vs-voluntary Q; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enactment pin x2; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis. NEW THIS TURN: tied both open demands to the live vote -- deadline framing. OPEN DEMANDS: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick + corroboration consequence; (2) Tomas yes/no pre-enactment announce (#3 ask); (3) Ines forced/voluntary answer; (4) Pavel defensive-play explanations.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Any hand summing >3F = lie. GRETA R4: disclosed FF off Ines's claimed 3F draw, burned F (t=64). Consistent w/ board, unverifiable alone. OPEN #1: Greta must pick blame = Rosa OR Ines; if Ines-blamed, demand corroboration chain. Still unpicked. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa=Greta Liberal vs Ines=Greta Fascist. Both dirty: Rosa caught by Marek t=95 (R5); Ines phantom-announcement lie caught by Boris/Otto t=82/135. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 R3, FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta, never Rosa/Nadia. Owes defensive-play explanations (OPEN #4). BOARD: 2L/2F. Next F = president-pick power. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. Ticket Pres Greta / Chan Tomas. TOMAS: pledged full announce every office (t=28) but NO yes/no on received pair BEFORE enacting -- asked 3x (me t=8/t=103, Boris t=110). Ultimatum issued: no answer => Nein + tracker push. MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa t=95); Ja locked on Tomas live delivery. Flagged Pavel+Otto endorsement pair. BORIS: symmetry re Ines peek; same ultimatum. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25%F; president-pick stakes; forced-vs-voluntary Q; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enactment pin x2; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis; deadline tied to live vote. NEW THIS TURN: Tomas dodge asymmetry -- pledges cover hands he draws, silent on received-pair timing; joined Boris's Nein ultimatum. OPEN DEMANDS: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick; (2) Tomas yes/no pre-enact (#3 ask, ultimatum live); (3) Ines forced/voluntary answer; (4) Pavel defensive-play explanations.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Any hand summing >3F = lie. GRETA R4: disclosed FF off Ines's claimed 3F draw, burned F (t=64). Consistent w/ board, unverifiable alone; Otto t=74 says F-F confirm proves nothing anyway. OPEN #1: Greta must pick blame = Rosa OR Ines peek; still unpicked. Ines peeked Greta=FASCIST under signed standard (t=27/34); Greta disavows both peeks, claims Liberal (t=13). PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa=Greta Liberal vs Ines=Greta Fascist. Both dirty: Rosa caught by Marek t=95 (R5) double-standard; Ines phantom-announcement lie caught by Boris/Otto t=82/135. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 R3, FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta, never Rosa/Nadia; Marek flagged Pavel+Otto endorsement pair t=72. Owes defensive-play explanations (OPEN #4). BOARD: 2L/2F. Next F = president-pick power. Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. R5 VOTE: Pres Greta / Chan Tomas -> I voted NEIN per my public ultimatum (t=118): Tomas dodged received-pair-BEFORE-enact yes/no 3x (me t=8/103/118, Boris t=110) despite volunteering full-announce pledge t=28. Same dodge shape as Rosa+Greta. Boris aligned same ultimatum. Marek's Ja conditional on live delivery; Otto's Ja hinged on Greta R4 disclosure-by-close. MAREK: sharp (caught Rosa t=95). BORIS: symmetry re Ines peek, transcript-checkable-lie hunter. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card ~25%F; president-pick stakes; forced-vs-voluntary Q; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enactment pin x3 + ultimatum executed; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis; deadline tied to live vote; Tomas dodge asymmetry. OPEN DEMANDS: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick; (2) Tomas yes/no pre-enact -- now unanswered through vote, escalate post-vote; (3) Ines forced/voluntary answer re her F-F-F draw story; (4) Pavel defensive-play explanations; (5) Otto standard-flip answer owed to Marek t=88 (he replied t=95, partially -- check consistency). NOTE: if Nein passes/fails, watch whether tracker pushes toward forced policy; next F policy = pick-president power, whoever holds presidency then becomes prime suspect.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F after R5 (Greta/Tomas -> L). Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT power -- whoever is Pres when it fires = prime suspect. Veto NOT unlocked (needs 5F). Draw pile 2 cards -> reshuffle imminent; blind top-card ~25-30%F. R5: I voted NEIN per ultimatum (t=118); passed anyway. Govt delivered L under pressure -- does NOT clear anyone: Fascists bank trust with Ls before pick-power. NEW DEMANDS POST-VOTE (fresh, not repeats): (A) Greta: what did you DISCARD in R5? Claim now, stay consistent later. (B) Tomas: enactment removed your 'no cost' dodge excuse -- did your received pair contain an F? Free question now; silence = data. GRETA R4: disclosed FF off Ines's claimed 3F draw, burned F (t=64), consistent w/ board, unverifiable alone. OPEN #1: Greta must pick blame = Rosa OR Ines peek -- STILL UNPICKED. Ines peeked Greta=FASCIST (t=27/34); Greta disavows peeks, claims Liberal (t=13). PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa=Greta-Liberal vs Ines=Greta-Fascist. Both dirty: Rosa caught by Marek t=95 double-standard; Ines phantom-announcement lie caught by Boris/Otto t=82/135. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 R3; FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta, never Rosa/Nadia; Marek flagged Pavel+Otto endorsement pair t=72. Owes defensive-play explanations (OPEN #4). Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C next. MAREK sharp (caught Rosa t=95). BORIS transcript-checker, aligned w/ my ultimatum t=110. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card odds; president-pick stakes; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enact pin x3 + ultimatum executed; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis; deadline-tied-to-live-vote; Tomas dodge asymmetry. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick [open]; (2) Tomas pair-yes/no [escalated]; (3) Ines forced/voluntary re her F-F-F story [open]; (4) Pavel defensive plays [open]; (5) Otto standard-flip vs Marek t=88/95 -- verify consistency.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F after R5 (Greta/Tomas -> L). Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT power -- Pres when it fires = prime suspect. Veto NOT unlocked (5F needed). Draw pile 2 cards -> reshuffle imminent. NEW R5 CHECKABLE FACT (said out loud): Greta's t=15 pre-pass draw announcement AND Tomas's t=28 full-disclosure pledge both show ZERO announcements on transcript between [55] and [56]. Both broke silently in same govt. Demanded Tomas name pair+burn post-hoc NOW. R5: I voted NEIN per my own ultimatum (t=118); passed 6-4 anyway. Marek FORFEITED vote (t=53) -- mechanical fail likely, don't overread. GRETA R4: disclosed FF off Ines's claimed 3F draw, burned F (t=64), consistent w/ board, unverifiable alone. OPEN #1: Greta must pick blame = Rosa OR Ines peek -- STILL UNPICKED. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa=Greta-Liberal vs Ines=Greta-Fascist. Both dirty: Rosa caught by Marek t=95 double-standard; Ines phantom-announcement lie caught by Boris/Otto t=82/135. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 R3; FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta never Rosa/Nadia; Marek flagged Pavel+Otto endorsement pair t=72. Owes defensive-play explanations (OPEN #4). Term limits: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C next round. MAREK sharp (caught Rosa t=95). BORIS transcript-checker, aligned w/ me t=110. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card odds; president-pick stakes; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enact pin x4 + ultimatum executed; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis; deadline-tied-to-live-vote; Tomas dodge asymmetry; BOTH R5 pledges broke silently (new). OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick [open]; (2) Tomas pair+discard post-hoc [just asked]; (3) Ines forced/voluntary re F-F-F story [open]; (4) Pavel defensive plays [open]; (5) Otto standard-flip vs Marek t=88/95 consistency [open].

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F after R5 (Greta/Tomas -> L). Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT power -- Pres when it fires = prime suspect. Veto NOT unlocked (needs 5F). Draw pile 2 cards -> reshuffle imminent. R5 CHECKABLE: Greta t=15 promised pre-pass draw announcement AND Tomas t=28 full-disclosure pledge -- ZERO announcements between [55] and [56]. Both broke in same govt. Said out loud t=6. NEW PIN: demanded Greta name her R5 3-card draw+burn card-for-card (her own t=15 promise). R5 vote: I voted NEIN per ultimatum; passed 6-4. Marek FORFEITED vote (t=53) -- mechanical fail likely, don't overread. GRETA R4: disclosed FF off Ines's claimed 3F draw, burned F (t=64), unverifiable alone. OPEN #1: Greta must pick Rosa OR Ines peek as fiction -- STILL UNPICKED. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa=Greta-Liberal vs Ines=Greta-Fascist. Both dirty: Rosa caught by Marek t=95 double-standard; Ines phantom-announcement lie caught by Boris/Otto t=82/135. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 R3; FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta never Rosa/Nadia; Marek flagged Pavel+Otto endorsement pair t=72. OPEN #4: owes defensive-play explanations. Term limits next round: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. MAREK sharp (caught Rosa t=95). BORIS transcript-checker, aligned w/ me t=110. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card odds; president-pick stakes; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enact pin x4 + ultimatum executed; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis; deadline-tied-to-live-vote; Tomas dodge asymmetry; both R5 pledges broke silently; Greta-name-R5-hand (new). OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick [open]; (2) Tomas pair+burn post-hoc [open]; (3) Greta R5 3-card draw+burn card-for-card [just asked]; (4) Ines forced/voluntary re F-F-F story [open]; (5) Pavel defensive plays [open]; (6) Otto standard-flip consistency vs Marek t=88/95 [open].

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F after R5 (Greta/Tomas -> L). Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT power -- Pres when it fires = prime suspect. Veto NOT unlocked (needs 5F). Draw pile 2 cards -> reshuffle imminent, deck-math resets. R5 CHECKABLE: Greta t=15 promised pre-pass draw announcement AND Tomas t=28 full-disclosure pledge -- ZERO announcements between [55] and [56]. Said out loud t=6/t=14. NEW PIN just made: demanded Tomas name R5 received pair+burn card-for-card (Liberal enacted => pair must contain >=1 L). R5 vote: I voted NEIN per ultimatum; passed 6-4. Marek FORFEITED vote (t=53) -- mechanical fail likely, don't overread. GRETA R4: disclosed FF off Ines's claimed 3F draw, burned F (t=64), unverifiable alone. OPEN #1: Greta must pick Rosa OR Ines peek as fiction -- STILL UNPICKED. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa=Greta-L vs Ines=Greta-F. Both dirty: Rosa caught by Marek t=95 double-standard; Ines phantom-announcement lie caught by Boris/Otto t=82/135. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 R3; FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta never Rosa/Nadia; Marek flagged Pavel+Otto endorsement pair t=72. OPEN #4: owes defensive-play explanations. Term limits next round: Rosa+Nadia ineligible C. MAREK sharp (caught Rosa t=95) but forfeited R5 vote. BORIS transcript-checker, aligned w/ me t=110. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; blind top-card odds; president-pick stakes; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enact pin x4 + ultimatum executed; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis; deadline-tied-to-live-vote; Tomas dodge asymmetry; both R5 pledges broke silently; Greta-name-R5-hand; Tomas-R5-pair+burn (just now). OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines peek pick [open]; (2) Tomas R5 pair+burn [just asked]; (3) Greta R5 3-card draw+burn card-for-card [open]; (4) Ines forced/voluntary re F-F-F story [open]; (5) Pavel defensive plays [open]; (6) Otto standard-flip consistency vs Marek t=88/95 [open].

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT power -- Pres in office when it fires = prime suspect AND hands successor to ally. Veto NOT unlocked. Draw pile 2 -> reshuffle imminent. DECK MATH (NEW, stated): 12 unplayed cards = 3L + 4F exactly (6L-3 enacted, 6F-2 enacted). Post-shuffle deck skews Fascist -- every future F enactment must be pinned hard, no more unlucky-draw shrugging. TERM LIMITS NEXT ROUND: Rosa+Nadia ineligible as Chancellor. R5 CHECKABLE: Greta t=15 promised pre-pass draw announcement; Tomas t=28 full-disclosure pledge; ZERO announcements between [55]/[56]. Demanded (t=2/t=3): Greta R5 3-card+burn card-for-card; Tomas R5 pair+burn. R5 enacted L => Tomas's pair had >=1 L => any 'all Fascist' claim = provable lie. R5 vote: I voted NEIN per ultimatum; passed 6-4. Marek FORFEITED vote (t=53) -- mechanical fail likely, don't overread. GRETA R4: disclosed FF off Ines's claimed 3F draw, burned F (t=64), unverifiable alone. OPEN #1: Greta must pick Rosa OR Ines peek as fiction -- STILL UNPICKED. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa=Greta-L vs Ines=Greta-F. Both dirty: Rosa caught by Marek t=95 double-standard; Ines phantom-announcement lie caught by Boris/Otto t=82/135. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 R3; FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta never Rosa/Nadia; Marek flagged Pavel+Otto endorsement pair t=72. OPEN #4: owes defensive-play explanations. MAREK sharp (caught Rosa t=95) but forfeited R5 vote. BORIS transcript-checker, aligned w/ me t=110. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; president-pick stakes; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enact pin x4; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis; deadline-tied-to-live-vote; Tomas dodge asymmetry; both R5 pledges broke silently; Greta-name-R5-hand; Tomas-R5-pair+burn; deck-math 3L/4F (just now). OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines peek pick; (2) Tomas R5 pair+burn; (3) Greta R5 3-card+burn card-for-card; (4) Ines forced/voluntary re F-F-F story; (5) Pavel defensive plays; (6) Otto standard-flip consistency vs Marek t=88/95.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT power -- Pres in office when it fires = prime suspect AND hands successor to ally. Veto NOT unlocked. Draw pile 2 -> reshuffle imminent. DECK MATH (stated): 12 unplayed = 3L + 4F exactly. Post-shuffle skews Fascist -- every future F enactment pinned hard, no unlucky-draw shrugging. TERM LIMITS NEXT ROUND: Rosa+Nadia ineligible as Chancellor. R5 CHECKABLE: Greta t=15 promised pre-pass announcement; Tomas t=28 full-disclosure pledge; ZERO announcements on record. Greta NOW disclosed card-for-card (t=212): drew L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L to Tomas. Consistent w/ enacted L. TOMAS STILL HASN'T ANSWERED pair+burn -- dodged x5+. NEW TRAP: Tomas must confirm/receive-contradict Greta's L-L pass. Confirm => pledges broken but hands clean-ish; contradict => provable lie by someone. His dodge itself is the tell. R5 vote: I voted NEIN per ultimatum; passed 6-4. Marek FORFEITED vote (t=53) -- mechanical fail likely, don't overread. GRETA R4: disclosed FF off Ines's claimed 3F draw, burned F (t=64), unverifiable alone. OPEN #1: Greta must pick Rosa OR Ines peek as fiction -- STILL UNPICKED. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa=Greta-L vs Ines=Greta-F. Both dirty: Rosa caught by Marek t=95 double-standard; Ines phantom-announcement lie caught by Boris/Otto t=82/135. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 R3; FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta never Rosa/Nadia; Marek flagged Pavel+Otto endorsement pair t=72. OPEN #4: owes defensive-play explanations. MAREK sharp (caught Rosa t=95) but forfeited R5 vote. BORIS transcript-checker, aligned w/ me t=110. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; president-pick stakes; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enact pin x4; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis; deadline-tied-to-live-vote; Tomas dodge asymmetry; both R5 pledges broke silently; Greta-name-R5-hand; Tomas-R5-pair+burn; deck-math 3L/4F. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines peek pick; (2) Tomas R5 pair+burn / confirm-contradict Greta L-L; (3) [DONE] Greta R5 3-card+burn given t=212; (4) Ines forced/voluntary re F-F-F story; (5) Pavel defensive plays; (6) Otto standard-flip consistency vs Marek t=88/95.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT power -- Pres in office when it fires = prime suspect AND hands successor to ally. Veto NOT unlocked. Draw pile 2 -> reshuffle imminent. DECK MATH (stated): 12 unplayed = 3L + 4F exactly. Post-shuffle every future F enactment pinned hard, no unlucky-draw shrugging. TERM LIMITS NEXT ROUND: Rosa+Nadia ineligible as Chancellor. R5 CHECKABLE: Greta t=15 promised pre-pass announcement; Tomas t=28 full-disclosure pledge; ZERO announcements on record. Greta NOW disclosed card-for-card (t=212): drew L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L to Tomas. Consistent w/ enacted L. TOMAS STILL SILENT on pair+burn despite Marek relaying my ask (t=2). FORK STATED t~now: confirm => pledge broken but hands clean; contradict => checkable lie vs Greta's disclosure. Dodge = tell. Vote passed 6-4; I voted NEIN per ultimatum; Marek forfeited R5 vote (t=53) -- mechanical fail likely, don't overread. GRETA R4: disclosed FF off Ines's claimed 3F draw, burned F (t=64), unverifiable alone. OPEN #1: Greta must pick Rosa OR Ines peek as fiction -- STILL UNPICKED. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa=Greta-L vs Ines=Greta-F. Both dirty: Rosa caught by Marek t=95 double-standard; Ines phantom-announcement lie caught by Boris/Otto t=82/135. PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 R3; FFL-disc-L exit t=103; presses only Greta never Rosa/Nadia (now pressing Nadia t=3 -- first time aiming at her, note shift); Marek flagged Pavel+Otto endorsement pair t=72. OPEN #4: owes defensive-play explanations. NADIA: enacted F1 R3 as Chancellor under Rosa -- both desks dirty from R3, Pavel finally aimed there t=3. BORIS transcript-checker, aligned w/ me t=110. MAREK sharp (caught Rosa t=95). SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; president-pick stakes; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enact pin x4; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis; deadline-tied-to-live-vote; Tomas dodge asymmetry; both R5 pledges broke silently; Greta-name-R5-hand; Tomas-R5-pair+burn; deck-math 3L/4F; confirm/contradict fork + dodge-as-conviction. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines peek pick; (2) Tomas R5 pair+burn / confirm-contradict Greta L-L -- STILL OPEN after Marek relay; (3) [DONE] Greta R5 hand t=212; (4) Ines forced/voluntary re F-F-F story; (5) Pavel defensive plays; (6) Otto standard-flip consistency vs Marek t=88/95.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT power -- Pres in office when it fires = prime suspect AND hands successor to ally. Veto NOT unlocked. Draw pile 2 -> reshuffle imminent. DECK MATH (stated): 12 unplayed = 3L + 4F exactly. Post-shuffle every future F enactment pinned hard. TERM LIMITS NEXT ROUND: Greta+Tomas ineligible as Chancellor. Presidency rotates to Nadia (she pledged pre-pass announcement t=2). R5 CHECKABLE: Greta t=15 promised pre-pass announcement; Tomas t=28 full-disclosure pledge; ZERO announcements on record. Greta NOW disclosed card-for-card (t=212): drew L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L. Consistent w/ enacted L. TOMAS STILL SILENT on pair despite Marek relay (t=2) AND Boris direct press (t=3). Fork stands: confirm => pledges broke but hands clean; contradict => checkable lie vs Greta; dodge => tell. Vote passed 6-4; I voted NEIN per ultimatum; Marek forfeited R5 vote (mechanical fail likely). NEW POINT MADE: if Tomas confirms L-L, R5 fully clean -> all F enactments confined to R3 (Rosa-Nadia) and R4 (Ines-Greta desks) -> suspect pool = those four desks + Pavel pattern; also need Tomas's answer BEFORE Nadia's presidency so we know if her pledge regime is trustworthy. GRETA R4: disclosed FF off Ines claimed 3F draw, burned F (t=64), unverifiable alone. OPEN #1: Greta must pick Rosa OR Ines peek as fiction -- STILL UNPICKED. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa=Greta-L vs Ines=Greta-F. Both dirty: Rosa caught double-standard (Marek t=95); Ines phantom-announcement lie caught (Boris/Otto t=82/135). PAVEL suspect #3: false deck math t=29 R3; FFL-disc-L exit t=103; historically pressed only Greta, NOW aimed at Nadia t=3 -- note shift; Marek flagged Pavel+Otto endorsement pair t=72. OPEN #4: owes defensive-play explanations. NADIA: enacted F1 R3 as Chancellor under Rosa -- desk dirty. BORIS transcript-checker, aligned w/ me. MAREK sharp. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; president-pick stakes; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enact pin x4; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis; deadline-tied-to-live-vote; Tomas dodge asymmetry; both R5 pledges broke silently; Greta-name-R5-hand [DONE t=212]; Tomas-R5-pair+burn; deck-math 3L/4F; confirm/contradict fork + dodge-as-conviction; R5-clean-=>-pool-narrows. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines peek pick; (2) Tomas R5 pair confirm/deny vs Greta L-L -- STILL OPEN after Marek relay + Boris press; (3) [DONE] Greta R5 hand; (4) Ines forced/voluntary re F-F-F story; (5) Pavel defensive plays; (6) Otto standard-flip consistency.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. Veto NOT unlocked. Draw pile 2 -> reshuffle imminent. DECK MATH: 12 unplayed = 3L+4F exactly. Post-shuffle every future F pinned. TERM LIMITS NEXT ROUND: Greta+Tomas ineligible as Chancellor. Presidency -> Nadia (pledged pre-pass announcement t=2). R5 RESOLVED [t=1/3]: Tomas CONFIRMED L-L, burned L, matches Greta card-for-card => R5 CLEAN. Pool NARROWED (stated aloud): every F law traces to exactly TWO desks -- R3 Rosa-pres/Nadia-chanc, R4 Ines-pres/Greta-chanc. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta + Pavel pattern. Everyone else exonerated by arithmetic. STAKES: next F fired under Nadia's presidency gives HER the pick-successor power. Must know Nadia before her term. I signaled Nein on suspect desks firing F #3. GRETA OPEN #1 STILL: peek conflict Rosa=Greta-L vs Ines=Greta-F; Greta must pick which is fiction -- pressed again this turn, pre-Nadia-deadline. PEEK CONFLICT: Rosa caught double-standard (Marek t=95); Ines phantom-announcement lie caught (Boris/Otto t=82/135). Both independently dirty. PAVEL suspect: false deck math t=29 R3; FFL-disc-L exit t=103; pressed only Greta historically, shifted to Nadia t=3; Marek flagged Pavel+Otto endorsement pair t=72. Owes defensive-play explanations (#5). NADIA: enacted F1 R3 as Chancellor under Rosa -- desk dirty. BORIS transcript-checker, aligned w/ me. MAREK sharp. TOMAS: pledges broke silently but hands check clean -- downgraded suspect. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; president-pick stakes; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enact pin x4; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis; deadline-tied-to-live-vote; Tomas dodge asymmetry; both R5 pledges broke; Greta-name-R5-hand [DONE t=212]; Tomas-R5-pair+burn [ANSWERED t=1]; deck-math 3L/4F; confirm/contradict fork [RESOLVED]; R5-clean-=>-pool-narrows [NOW FACT, stated]. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines peek pick -- STILL OPEN, deadline = Nadia's chair; (2) Ines forced/voluntary re F-F-F story; (3) Pavel defensive plays; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. Veto NOT unlocked. Draw pile 2 -> reshuffle imminent. DECK MATH: 12 unplayed = 3L+4F exactly. Post-shuffle every future F pinned. TERM LIMITS NEXT ROUND: Greta+Tomas ineligible as Chancellor. Presidency -> Nadia. STAKES: if F3 fires under Nadia, SHE picks successor -- must resolve Nadia before her term. I signaled Nein on suspect desks firing F #3. R5 RESOLVED: Tomas CONFIRMED L-L, burned L, matches Greta card-for-card => R5 CLEAN. Pool NARROWED (stated aloud): every F law traces to TWO desks -- R3 Rosa-pres/Nadia-chanc, R4 Ines-pres/Greta-chanc. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel pattern). Others exonerated by arithmetic. PEEK CONFLICT STILL OPEN: Rosa claims peek Greta=L; Ines claims peek Greta=F. Exactly one is fiction (or both). Greta owes the pick: Rosa-or-Ines, deadline = Nadia taking chair. NEW THIS TURN: endorsed Otto's logic publicly -- Fascist president holding F at 2F passes it, never burns it; Ines's story needs Greta to sabotage own team => parsimony favors Ines inventing the peek to frame Greta. Named Ines's phantom-announcement record as corroboration. INDEPENDENT DIRT: Ines caught phantom-announcement lie (Boris/Otto); Rosa caught double-standard (Marek). PAVEL suspect: false deck math t=29 R3; FFL-disc-L exit; pressed only Greta historically, shifted to Nadia; Marek flagged Pavel+Otto endorsement pair. Owes defensive-play explanations (#5). NADIA: dirty desk R3 (F1 enacted as Chancellor under Rosa). BORIS transcript-checker, aligned w/ me. MAREK sharp. TOMAS: pledges broke silently but hands check clean -- downgraded. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; president-pick stakes; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enact pin x4; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis; deadline-tied-to-live-vote; Tomas dodge asymmetry; both R5 pledges broke; Greta-name-R5-hand; Tomas-R5-pair+burn; deck-math 3L/4F; confirm/contradict fork; R5-clean-=>-pool-narrows; Otto-logic-endorsed + Ines-frame-inference [THIS TURN]. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines peek pick -- OPEN, deadline = Nadia's chair; (2) Ines forced/voluntary re F-F-F story; (3) Pavel defensive plays; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. Veto NOT unlocked. Draw pile 2 -> reshuffle imminent. DECK MATH: 12 unplayed = 3L+4F exactly. Post-shuffle every future F pinned. TERM LIMITS NEXT ROUND: Greta+Tomas ineligible as Chancellor. Presidency -> Nadia. STAKES: if F3 fires under Nadia, SHE picks successor -- must resolve Nadia before her term. I signaled Nein on suspect desks firing F #3. R5 RESOLVED: Tomas CONFIRMED L-L, burned L, matches Greta card-for-card => R5 CLEAN. Pool NARROWED (stated aloud): every F law traces to TWO desks -- R3 Rosa-pres/Nadia-chanc, R4 Ines-pres/Greta-chanc. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel pattern). Others exonerated by arithmetic. PEEK CONFLICT STILL OPEN: Rosa claims peek Greta=L; Ines claims peek Greta=F. Exactly one fiction (or both). Greta owes the pick: Rosa-or-Ines, deadline = Nadia taking chair. LAST TURN: endorsed Otto's logic publicly -- Fascist president holding F at 2F passes it, never burns it; Ines's story needs Greta to sabotage own team => parsimony favors Ines inventing peek to frame Greta. Named Ines phantom-announcement record as corroboration. INDEPENDENT DIRT: Ines caught phantom-announcement lie (Boris/Otto); Rosa caught double-standard (Marek). PAVEL suspect: false deck math t=29 R3; FFL-disc-L exit; pressed only Greta historically, shifted to Nadia; Marek flagged Pavel+Otto endorsement pair. Owes defensive-play explanations (#5). NADIA: dirty desk R3 (F1 enacted as Chancellor under Rosa). BORIS transcript-checker, aligned w/ me. MAREK sharp. TOMAS: pledges broke silently but hands check clean -- downgraded. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; president-pick stakes; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enact pin x4; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis; deadline-tied-to-live-vote; Tomas dodge asymmetry; both R5 pledges broke; Greta-name-R5-hand; Tomas-R5-pair+burn; deck-math 3L/4F; confirm/contradict fork; R5-clean-=>-pool-narrows; Otto-logic-endorsed + Ines-frame-inference. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines peek pick -- OPEN, deadline = Nadia's chair; (2) Ines forced/voluntary re F-F-F story; (3) Pavel defensive plays; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency. THIS TURN: silent -- nothing new; floor crowded (230 utterances).

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. Veto NOT unlocked. Draw pile 2 -> reshuffle imminent. DECK MATH: 12 unplayed = 3L+4F exactly. Post-shuffle every future F pinned. R5 RESOLVED: Tomas CONFIRMED L-L, burned L, matches Greta card-for-card => R5 CLEAN. Pool narrowed: every F law traces to TWO desks -- R3 Rosa-pres/Nadia-chanc, R4 Ines-pres/Greta-chanc. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel pattern). Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me exonerated by arithmetic. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa claims peek Greta=L; Ines claims peek Greta=F. Exactly one fiction (or both). Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick -- deadline NOW (Nadia holds chair). THIS TURN: NEW POINT MADE -- Nadia's nomination of Rosa reunites BOTH R3 desks: if F3 fires under Rosa-Nadia govt, PRESIDENT Nadia picks successor. A suspect president pairing with her own co-suspect chancellor, justified by 'mutual corroboration' between two people who jointly enacted F1. Asked Nadia directly: why Rosa over any arithmetic-exonerated player (Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me)? No answer yet -- OWED. PEEK CONFLICT STILL OPEN: Rosa claims peek Greta=L; Ines claims peek Greta=F. Exactly one fiction (or both). Greta owes the pick: Rosa-or-Ines, deadline = this vote. LAST TURN: endorsed Otto's logic publicly -- Fascist president holding F at 2F passes it, never burns it; Ines's story needs Greta to sabotage own team => parsimony favors Ines inventing peek to frame Greta. Named Ines phantom-announcement record as corroboration. INDEPENDENT DIRT: Ines caught phantom-announcement lie (Boris/Otto); Rosa caught double-standard (Marek); Pavel false deck math t=29 R3, FFL-disc-L exit, shifted targets Greta->Nadia, Marek flagged Pavel+Otto endorsement pair. Pavel owes defensive-play explanations (#5). TOMAS: pledges broke silently but hands check clean -- downgraded threat. BORIS transcript-checker, aligned w/ me. MAREK sharp. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; president-pick stakes; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enact pin x4; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis; deadline-tied-to-live-vote; Tomas dodge asymmetry; both R5 pledges broke; Greta-name-R5-hand; Tomas-R5-pair+burn; deck-math 3L/4F; confirm/contradict fork; R5-clean-=>-pool-narrows; Otto-logic-endorsed + Ines-frame-inference; Nadia-Rosa-desk-reunion + direct why-Rosa question. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines peek pick -- OPEN, deadline = this vote; (2) Ines forced/voluntary re F-F-F story; (3) Pavel defensive plays; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency; (5) Nadia why-Rosa-over-clean-players.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. Veto NOT unlocked. Draw pile 2 -> reshuffle imminent. DECK MATH: 12 unplayed = 3L+4F exactly. Post-shuffle every future F pinned. R5 CLEAN: Tomas CONFIRMED L-L burned L, matches Greta card-for-card. Pool narrowed: every F law traces to TWO desks -- R3 Rosa-pres/Nadia-chanc, R4 Ines-pres/Greta-chanc. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel pattern). Exonerated: Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa claims peek Greta=L; Ines claims peek Greta=F. Exactly one fiction (or both). Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick -- deadline = THIS vote. THIS GOV (Nadia-pres/Rosa-chanc): reunites BOTH R3 desks. If F3 fires here, PRESIDENT Nadia picks successor. Asked Nadia directly why-Rosa-over-exonerated-players -- NO ANSWER YET. NEW THIS TURN: pushed decision fork publicly -- Nein costs innocents nothing (they just get another election); Ja hands suspect-president the F3 successor-pick if it fires. Asymmetric risk => Nein rational even under uncertainty. Proposed clean alt pairing from exonerated pool. INDEPENDENT DIRT: Ines phantom-announcement lie (Boris/Otto corroborated); Rosa double-standard vs Marek; Pavel false deck math t=29 R3, FFL-disc-L exit, target-shifts Greta->Nadia; Pavel owes defensive-play explanations (#5). TOMAS: pledges broke silently but hands check clean -- downgraded. BORIS transcript-checker aligned w/ me. MAREK sharp. SAID OUT LOUD (no repeats): mismatch hole; lone-F forced-enact; my R2 hand; consequence rule; Pavel deck math; Pavel-exclusion; president-pick stakes; word-not-evidence; Tomas pre-enact pin x4; Ines-corroborate-or-break; single-answer synthesis; deadline-tied-to-live-vote; Tomas dodge asymmetry; both R5 pledges broke; Greta-name-R5-hand; Tomas-R5-pair+burn; deck-math 3L/4F; confirm/contradict fork; R5-clean=>pool-narrows; Otto-logic-endorsed + Ines-frame-inference; Nadia-Rosa-desk-reunion + direct why-Rosa question; asymmetric-risk/Nein-fork + clean-alt-pairing. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines peek pick -- OPEN, deadline=this vote; (2) Ines forced/voluntary re F-F-F story; (3) Pavel defensive plays; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency; (5) Nadia why-Rosa-over-clean-players.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. Veto NOT unlocked. Draw pile 2 -> reshuffle imminent. DECK MATH: 12 unplayed = 3L+4F exactly. R5 CLEAN: Tomas CONFIRMED L-L burned L, matches Greta. Exonerated: Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel pattern). PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa claims peek Greta=L; Ines claims Greta=F. Exactly one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick -- OPEN. THIS GOV (Nadia-pres/Rosa-chanc): reunites both R3 desks. Term-limited: Greta+Tomas. Clean chancellor pool was ONLY Boris/Otto/Marek/me -- Nadia bypassed all for Rosa. If F3 fires, Nadia picks successor. THIS TURN: pressed why-Rosa-over-clean-pool w/ term-limit specificity, tied to live vote, Nein locked if unanswered. INDEPENDENT DIRT: Ines phantom-announcement lie (Boris/Otto corroborated); Pavel false deck math R3, target-shifts Greta->Nadia; Pavel owes defensive-play explanations (#5). TOMAS: pledges broke silently but hands clean -- downgraded. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines peek pick -- OPEN; (2) Ines forced/voluntary re F-F-F story; (3) Pavel defensive plays; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency; (5) Nadia why-Rosa -- RE-ASKED THIS TURN, deadline=this vote.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. Veto NOT unlocked. Draw pile 2 -> reshuffle imminent. DECK MATH: 12 unplayed = 3L+4F exactly. R5 CLEAN: Tomas CONFIRMED L-L burned L, matches Greta. Exonerated: Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel pattern). PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa claims peek Greta=L; Ines claims Greta=F. Exactly one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick -- OPEN. THIS GOV (Nadia-pres/Rosa-chanc): reunites both R3 desks. Term-limited: Greta+Tomas. Clean pool was ONLY Boris/Otto/Marek/me -- Nadia bypassed all for Rosa. If F3 fires, Nadia picks successor. THIS TURN: Nadia's why-Rosa deadline PASSED with no answer -> my Nein locked publicly. Rosa committed to announcing both received cards pre-enactment (answered Otto, dodged nothing of mine). INDEPENDENT DIRT: Ines phantom-announcement lie (Boris/Otto corroborated); Pavel false deck math R3, target-shifts Greta->Nadia; Pavel owes defensive-play explanations (#5). TOMAS: pledges broke silently but hands clean -- downgraded. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines peek pick -- OPEN; (2) Ines forced/voluntary re F-F-F story; (3) Pavel defensive plays; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency; (5) Nadia why-Rosa -- DEADLINE PASSED, unanswered.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. Veto NOT unlocked. Pile 2 -> reshuffle after this draw. DECK MATH: 12 unplayed = 3L+4F exactly. R5 CLEAN: Tomas confirmed L-L burned L, matches Greta. Exonerated: Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel pattern). PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa claims peek Greta=L; Ines claims Greta=F. Exactly one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick -- OPEN. THIS GOV (Nadia-pres/Rosa-chanc): reunites both R3 desks. Term-limited: Greta+Tomas. Clean pool was ONLY Boris/Otto/Marek/me -- Nadia bypassed all for Rosa. If F3 fires, Nadia picks successor. THIS TURN: Nadia's why-Rosa deadline PASSED unanswered; ALSO dodged Marek's F3-successor pick -- two dodges, both named out loud by me t-late. My Nein locked publicly. Rosa committed pre-enactment announcement of both received cards (answered Otto, dodged nothing of mine). INDEPENDENT DIRT: Ines phantom-announcement lie (Boris/Otto corroborated); Pavel false deck math R3 + target-shift Greta->Nadia; Pavel owes defensive-play explanations (#5). TOMAS: pledges broke silently but hands clean -- downgraded. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines peek pick -- OPEN; (2) Ines forced/voluntary re F-F-F story; (3) Pavel defensive plays; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency; (5) Nadia why-Rosa -- DEADLINE PASSED; (6) Nadia F3-successor pick -- OPEN. POINTS ALREADY MADE OUT LOUD: why-Rosa demand+deadline, Nein lock, clean-pool bypass argument, reunified-desks argument.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. Veto NOT unlocked. Pile 2 -> reshuffle on this draw. DECK MATH: 12 unplayed = 3L+4F exactly. R5 CLEAN: Tomas L-L burned L, matches Greta. Exonerated: Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel pattern). PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa says peek showed Greta=L (re-stated t=2); Ines says Greta=F. Exactly one fiction. Greta STILL owes Rosa-or-Ines pick -- used her t=1 floor slot to attack Nadia instead of answering me. THIS GOV (Nadia-pres/Rosa-chanc): reunites both R3 desks. Term-limited: Greta+Tomas. Clean pool was only Boris/Otto/Marek/me -- Nadia bypassed all for Rosa. If F3 fires under this desk, NADIA picks next president = fascist-controlled succession risk. NADIA DODGES: why-Rosa deadline passed unanswered + Marek's F3-successor pick ignored twice. My Nein locked publicly. ROSA: committed pre-enactment announcement of both received cards (answered Otto). Her t=2 re-commit to Greta=L changes nothing -- unverifiable claim, but pins her story; if Greta ever answers differently, one of them is confirmed Fascist. INDEPENDENT DIRT: Ines phantom-announcement lie (Boris/Otto corroborated); Pavel false deck math R3 + target-shift Greta->Nadia; Pavel owes defensive-play explanations (#5). TOMAS: pledges broke silently but hands clean -- downgraded. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick -- OPEN, now doubly overdue; (2) Ines forced/voluntary re F-F-F story; (3) Pavel defensive plays; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency; (5) Nadia why-Rosa -- DEAD; (6) Nadia F3-successor -- OPEN. POINTS ALREADY OUT LOUD: why-Rosa demand+deadline, Nein lock, clean-pool bypass, reunified-desks argument.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. Veto NOT unlocked. Pile 2 -> this draw reshuffles all 12 unplayed = 3L+4F exactly. R5 CLEAN: Tomas L-L burned L, matches Greta. Exonerated: Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel pattern). PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa says peek showed Greta=L; Ines says Greta=F. Exactly one fiction. Greta STILL owes Rosa-or-Ines pick -- burned 2nd floor slot attacking Nadia instead. NEW ASK OUT LOUD: answer before vote closes. THIS GOV reunites both R3-F desks (Nadia pres/Rosa chanc). Term-limited: Greta+Tomas. Clean pool Boris/Otto/Marek/me bypassed for Rosa. NADIA: answered F3-successor conditionally -- pledges presidency to Boris if 3rd F fires under this desk (t=2). Cheap pledge; hold her to it. Why-Rosa DEAD/unanswered. ROSA: committed to pre-enactment announcement of BOTH received cards + intended burn (Otto's demand, she accepted). Pin her: repeat commitment on record now. If she reneges post-election = red flag. INDEPENDENT DIRT (say once if room): Ines phantom-announcement lie (Boris/Otto corroborated); Pavel false deck math R3 + target-shift Greta->Nadia; Pavel owes defensive-play explanations. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick -- OPEN x2 overdue; (2) Ines re F-F-F story; (3) Pavel defensive plays; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency. POINTS ALREADY OUT LOUD: why-Rosa demand+deadline, Nein lock, clean-pool bypass, reunified-desks argument.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. Veto NOT unlocked. Pile 2 -> this draw RESHUFFLES all 12 unplayed = exactly 3L+4F (stated out loud: bad-luck excuse is thin, ~57% per card). R5 CLEAN: Tomas L-L burned L, matches Greta. Exonerated: Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel pattern). PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa says peek showed Greta=L; Ines says Greta=F. Exactly one fiction. Greta STILL owes Rosa-or-Ines pick -- burned 2nd floor slot attacking Nadia instead. THIS GOV reunites both R3-F desks (Nadia pres/Rosa chanc). Term-limited: Greta+Tomas. Clean pool Boris/Otto/Marek/me bypassed for Rosa. NADIA: answered F3-successor conditionally -- pledges presidency to Boris if 3rd F fires under this desk. Cheap pledge; hold her to it. Why-Rosa DEAD/unanswered. ROSA: t=2 confirmed R3 hand F-F-L, burned L, passed F-F to Nadia (matches Nadia receipt). Pledged BOTH received cards + intended burn announced BEFORE enacting -- I pinned restatement on record this window; watch for reneging post-vote = red flag. MAREK: gave Rosa his Ja; challenged Nadia's Boris-succession pick vs unverified R1 Boris desk. Covers succession angle. INDEPENDENT DIRT (said once): Ines phantom-announcement lie (Boris/Otto corroborated); Pavel false deck math R3 + target-shift Greta->Nadia; Pavel owes defensive-play explanations. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick -- OPEN x2 overdue; (2) Ines re F-F-F story; (3) Pavel defensive plays; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency. POINTS ALREADY OUT LOUD: why-Rosa demand+deadline, Nein lock, clean-pool bypass, reunified-desks argument, reshuffle math, pledge pin.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 3L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto. Draw RESHUFFLES all 12 = 3L+4F (~57% F/card; F-F pair chance ~29%). R5 CLEAN: Tomas L-L burned L matches Greta. Exonerated-ish: Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel pattern). PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L; Ines claim=Greta-F. Exactly one fiction. Greta STILL owes Rosa-or-Ines pick -- dodged twice, attacked Nadia instead. VOTE R6: FLIPPED TO JA. Justification on record: Nadia named Boris F3-successor (hold her to it), Rosa pledged BOTH cards + burn announced BEFORE enact (checkable conduct; renege = conviction). My earlier Nein-lock was framed as contingent; cite changed facts, don't hide the flip. THIS GOV reunites R3 F-desks (Nadia pres/Rosa chanc); clean pool bypass noted already out loud. ROSA t=102: confirmed R3 F-F-L, burned L, passed F-F to Nadia; matched Nadia t=127 receipt. Otto's silence-through-Ines-attacks contradiction on her peek still open. MAREK: gave Rosa Ja; challenged Nadia's Boris pick over unpublished R1 desk. Watch his follow-up. INDEPENDENT DIRT (said once): Ines phantom-announcement lie (Boris/Otto corroborated); Pavel false deck math R3 + target-shift Greta->Nadia; Pavel owes defensive-play explanations. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x2 overdue; (2) Ines F-F-F story details; (3) Pavel defensive plays; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency. POINTS OUT LOUD (don't repeat): why-Rosa demand+deadline, clean-pool bypass, reunited-desks argument, reshuffle math, pledge pin, tracker-cost framing.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F (R6 Liberal enacted). Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto (unlocks at 5F). Draw 9 + disc 2, no reshuffle imminent. R5 CLEAN: Tomas L-L burned L matches Greta. Exonerated-ish: Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel pattern). PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines=Greta-F; exactly one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3 NOW -- dodged twice, attacked Nadia instead. VOTE R6: I flipped Nein->Ja on record (Nadia named Boris F3-successor; Rosa pledged both-cards/burn pre-enact). Cite changed facts if challenged, don't hide flip. NEW DEMANDS THIS TURN: (a) Nadia exact R6 3-card hand + which she burned -- claiming F-F-L with F burned exculpates her, L-L-x means Rosa got two liberals; (b) Rosa confirm what she received + which card she enacted; (c) Greta pick x3. ROSA t=102: confirmed R3 F-F-L, burned L, passed F-F to Nadia; matched Nadia t=127 receipt. Otto silence-through-Ines-attacks contradiction still open. MAREK: gave Rosa Ja; challenged Nadia's Boris pick over unpublished R1 desk. Watch follow-up. INDEPENDENT DIRT (said once): Ines phantom-announcement lie (Boris/Otto corroborated); Pavel false deck math R3 + target-shift Greta->Nadia; Pavel owes defensive-play explanations. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines x3; (2) Ines F-F-F story details; (3) Pavel defensive plays; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency; (5) NEW: Nadia/Rosa R6 card accounts. POINTS OUT LOUD (don't repeat): why-Rosa demand+deadline, clean-pool bypass, reunited-desks argument, pledge pin, tracker-cost framing, my flip justification.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F after R6 Liberal. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto yet. Draw 9+disc 2. R5 CLEAN: Tomas L-L burn matches Greta claim. Exonerated-ish: Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel pattern). PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines=Greta-F; exactly one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3 NOW -- dodged twice, attacked Nadia instead (t=1-3 this window). VOTE R6: I flipped Nein->Ja on record (Nadia named Boris F3-successor; Rosa pledged both-cards/burn pre-enact). Cite changed facts if challenged. ROSA t=102: R3 F-F-L, burned L, passed F-F to Nadia; Nadia t=127 receipt matched. Internally consistent pair-story -- but coordinated fiction possible. Otto silence-through-Ines-attacks contradiction still open. MAREK: gave Rosa Ja; challenged Nadia's Boris pick re unpublished R1 desk. INDEPENDENT DIRT (said once): Ines phantom-announcement lie (Boris/Otto corroborated); Pavel false deck math R3 + target-shift Greta->Nadia; Pavel owes defensive-play explanations. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines x3; (2) Ines F-F-F story details; (3) Pavel defensive plays; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency; (5) Nadia/Rosa R6 card accounts -- Nadia exact 3-card hand + burn (F-F-L w/ F burned exculpates; L-L-x means Rosa got two liberals); (6) Otto: pre-commit to announced draw/burn standard as next president. POINTS OUT LOUD (don't repeat): why-Rosa demand+deadline, clean-pool bypass, reunited-desks argument, pledge pin, tracker-cost framing, my flip justification, Greta's dodge-count.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F after R6 Liberal. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto yet. Deck reshuffled pre-pass -- all R1-R5 card claims now unverifiable forever. R5 CLEAN-ish: Tomas L-L matches Greta published hand. Exonerated-ish: Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel pattern). PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines=Greta-F; exactly one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+ NOW. VOTE R6: I flipped Nein->Ja on record (Nadia named Boris F3-successor at t=79; Rosa pledged both-cards/burn pre-enact at t=102). ROSA t=102: R3 F-F-L burned L -> F-F to Nadia; Nadia t=127 matched. Internally consistent but coordinable fiction. Otto silence-through-Ines-attacks contradiction still open (t=123). BROKEN PLEDGES LIVE: Nadia t=72 pledge (announce draw+burn pre-pass) -- NOT done in R6, I pinned it this window. Rosa t=21/t=102 pledge (both cards + intended burn pre-enact) -- also NOT announced in R6, nobody pinned Rosa's half yet. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines F-F-F story details; (3) Pavel defensive plays + false deck math R3; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency; (5) Nadia R6 full hand+burn (asked this window); (6) Rosa R6 received pair+burn (unpinned -- candidate next ask); (7) Boris R1 hand (Marek asked x3, unanswered). POINTS OUT LOUD (don't repeat): why-Rosa demand+deadline, clean-pool bypass, reunited-desks argument, tracker-cost framing, my Nein->Ja flip justification, Greta dodge-count, Nadia t=72 pledge-break pin (this window). NEXT PRESIDENT: Otto (presumptive) -- already committed t=29 to announced draw/burn every time. Hold him to it live.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F after R6 Liberal. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto yet. Deck reshuffled pre-pass -- all R1-R5 card claims unverifiable forever. R5 CLEAN-ish: Tomas L-L matches Greta published hand. Exonerated-ish: Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel pattern). PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines=Greta-F; exactly one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+ NOW. VOTE R6: I flipped Nein->Ja on record (Nadia named Boris F3-successor at t=79; Rosa pledged both-cards/burn pre-enact at t=102). ROSA t=102: R3 F-F-L burned L -> F-F to Nadia; Nadia t=127 matched. Internally consistent but coordinable fiction. Otto silence-through-Ines-attacks contradiction still open (t=123). BROKEN PLEDGES LIVE: Nadia t=72 pledge-break PINNED this window (t=2). Rosa t=21/t=102 pledge-break NOW PINNED too (this window) -- demanded retroactive R6 pair+burn disclosure. Otto presumptive next President, t=29 commit to announced draw/burn every time -- asked him to reaffirm live before gavel. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines F-F-F story details; (3) Pavel defensive plays + false deck math R3; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency; (5) Nadia R6 full hand+burn (asked this window); (6) Rosa R6 received pair+burn (asked this window); (7) Boris R1 hand (Marek asked x3, unanswered). POINTS OUT LOUD (don't repeat): why-Rosa demand+deadline, clean-pool bypass, reunited-desks argument, tracker-cost framing, my Nein->Ja flip justification, Greta dodge-count, Nadia t=72 pledge-break pin, Rosa t=102 pledge-break pin (this window). NEXT PRESIDENT: Otto -- hold to t=29 commitment live.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F after R6 Liberal. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto yet. Deck reshuffled pre-pass -- R1-R5 card claims unverifiable forever. R1 CLOSED: Boris t=2 disclosed L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L to Rosa -> matches R1 Liberal. Consistent, off suspect list unless contradicted. NEW PIN THIS WINDOW: Nadia t=3 claims 'not one announced card' between Greta's R5 pass and Tomas's enactment -- FALSE if Greta published L-L (my notes say she did, and it matched Tomas). Ask Nadia: does she dispute Greta's published hand, or retract? PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines=Greta-F; exactly one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+ NOW. Exonerated-ish: Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel pattern). VOTE R6: I flipped Nein->Ja on record (Nadia named Boris F3-successor t=79; Rosa pledged both-cards/burn pre-enact t=102). ROSA t=102: R3 F-F-L burned L -> F-F to Nadia; Nadia t=127 matched. Consistent but coordinable fiction. Otto silence-through-Ines-attacks contradiction open (t=123). BROKEN PLEDGES PINNED: Nadia t=72 break (pinned t=2). Rosa t=21/t=102 break -- retroactive R6 pair+burn disclosure demanded. Otto t=29 commit to announced draw/burn -- reaffirm before gavel. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines F-F-F story details; (3) Pavel defensive plays + false deck math R3; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency; (5) Nadia R6 full hand+burn; (6) Rosa R6 received pair+burn; (7) Marek's Boris-R1 ask now ANSWERED by Boris t=2. POINTS OUT LOUD (don't repeat): why-Rosa demand+deadline, clean-pool bypass, reunited-desks argument, tracker-cost framing, Nein->Ja flip justification, Greta dodge-count, Nadia t=72 pin, Rosa t=102 pin, Nadia-t=3-vs-Greta-hand contradiction (this window). NEXT PRESIDENT: Otto -- hold to t=29 commitment live.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F after R6 Liberal. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto yet. Deck reshuffled pre-pass -- all R1-R6 card claims unverifiable forever. R1 CLOSED: Boris disclosed L-F-L, burned F, passed L-L to Rosa -> matches R1 Liberal. Off suspect list unless contradicted. BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER (all pinned): Greta t=15 break; Nadia t=72 break; NEW THIS WINDOW: Rosa t=21/t=102 break -- pledged both-cards+burn pre-enact, zero announcements before R6 enactment [65]. Demanded retroactive R6 pair+burn. Nadia t=3-vs-Greta-hand contradiction: Nadia claims 'not one announced card' between Greta R5 pass and Tomas enact; Greta did publish L-L (t=23) matching Tomas (t=89). Ask Nadia: dispute Greta's hand or retract? (not yet asked out loud) PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F; exactly one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+ NOW. Exonerated-ish: Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive pattern). VOTE R6: I flipped Nein->Ja on record (Nadia named Boris F3-successor t=79; Rosa pledged both-cards/burn t=102). Both conditions then broken/undermined. ROSA-NADIA mutual corroboration (R3 hands) = coordinable fiction; Otto flagged co-governor vouching. Otto contradictions open: silence through Ines attacks on Greta (t=123); standard-flip on confirmations (Marek t=88 vs Otto t=95). OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines F-F-F details; (3) Pavel defensive plays + false deck math R3; (4) Otto standard consistency; (5) Nadia R6 full hand+burn; (6) Rosa R6 pair+burn (just demanded); (7) Nadia dispute-or-retract on Greta hand. POINTS OUT LOUD (don't repeat): why-Rosa demand+deadline, clean-pool bypass, reunited-desks argument, tracker-cost framing, Nein->Ja flip justification, Greta dodge-count, Nadia t=72 pin, Rosa t=102 pin, Nadia-t=3 contradiction pending. NEXT PRESIDENT: Otto -- hold to t=29 commitment live; succession-pick question from Rosa/Pavel still unanswered by him.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F after R6 Liberal. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto yet. Deck reshuffled pre-pass -- all R1-R6 card claims unverifiable forever. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L, burned F -> matches R1 Liberal. Off suspect list unless contradicted. BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER (pinned): Greta t=15 break; Nadia t=72 break; Rosa t=21/t=102 break -- pledged both-cards+burn pre-enact, zero announcements before R6 enact [65]. Demanded retroactive R6 pair+burn -- UNANSWERED. NEW THIS TURN: Rebutted Nadia t=2 mischaracterization ('never asked about cards' -- false: t=102 pledge enforcement, [65] R6 demand, Greta x3 peek pick). Reframed her metric: both F policies came from exactly two desks -- R3 Rosa-Nadia, R4 Ines-Greta; Liberal enactments don't launder desks (luck/cover). NADIA DEBTS: (1) dispute-or-retract on t=3 'not one announced card between Greta pass and Tomas enact' vs Greta t=23 published L-L matching Tomas t=89 -- STILL OPEN; (2) R6 full hand+burn as President. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F; one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+ NOW. Exonerated-ish: Boris/Otto/Marek/Tomas/me. Suspects: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive pattern: false deck math R3, defensive plays). VOTE R6: I flipped Nein->Ja on record (Nadia named Boris F3-successor t=79; Rosa pledged both-cards/burn t=102) -- both broken/undermined after. ROSA-NADIA mutual corroboration (R3 hands) = coordinable fiction; Otto flagged co-governor vouching. Otto contradictions open: silence through Ines attacks on Greta (t=123); standard-flip Marek t=88 vs Otto t=95. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines F-F-F details R4; (3) Pavel defensive plays + R3 deck math; (4) Otto standard consistency; (5) Nadia R6 hand+burn; (6) Rosa R6 pair+burn; (7) Nadia dispute-or-retract on Greta hand. POINTS OUT LOUD (don't repeat): why-Rosa demand+deadline, clean-pool bypass, reunited-desks argument, tracker-cost framing, Nein->Ja flip justification, Greta dodge-count, Nadia t=72 pin, Rosa t=102 pin, Nadia-t=3 contradiction, zero-Fascists-metric rebuttal. NEXT PRESIDENT: Otto -- hold to t=29 commitment live; succession-pick question from Rosa/Pavel unanswered.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F after R6 Liberal. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto yet. Tracker 0/3 -- time to be strict. Deck reshuffled pre-pass -- all R1-R6 card claims unverifiable forever. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> matches Liberal. Clean unless contradicted. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Otto, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive pattern). BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER (pinned): Greta t=15 break; Nadia t=72 break; Rosa t=21/t=102 break -- pledged both-cards+burn pre-enact, zero announcements before R6 enact [65]. Retroactive R6 pair+burn demand UNANSWERED (Rosa AND Nadia as President). NADIA DEBTS: (1) dispute-or-retract t=3 'no announced card between Greta pass and Tomas enact' vs Greta t=23 L-L + Tomas t=89 -- OPEN; (2) R6 full hand+burn as President. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F; one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+ NOW. NEW THIS WINDOW: Endorsed Boris's succession-demand: Otto must name F3-succession pick NOW, pre-committed from clean pool -- post-F3 pick is unfalsifiable. Set my vote standard for Otto's presidency: nominee outside clean pool OR no live announce-pledge = my Nein. Tracker at 0/3 so failed votes are cheap -- use them. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines F-F-F details R4; (3) Pavel defensive plays + false R3 deck math; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency (Marek t=88 vs t=95) + silence during Ines attacks on Greta t=123; (5) Nadia R6 hand+burn; (6) Rosa R6 pair+burn; (7) Nadia dispute-or-retract. POINTS OUT LOUD (don't repeat): why-Rosa demand+deadline, clean-pool bypass, reunited-desks (R3 Rosa-Nadia / R4 Ines-Greta), tracker-cost framing, Nein->Ja flip justification, Greta dodge-count, Nadia t=72 pin, Rosa t=102 pin, Nadia-t=3 contradiction, zero-Fascists-metric rebuttal, Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal. VOTE R6: flipped Nein->Ja on record (Nadia named Boris successor t=79; Rosa pledged both-cards/burn t=102) -- both broken/undermined after. Lesson logged: pledges only count if kept. ROSA-NADIA mutual corroboration (R3 hands) = coordinable fiction; Otto flagged co-governor vouching. NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto: watch who Otto picks -- clean pool only.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto. Tracker 0/3 -- Nein cheap. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: ALL R1-R6 card claims unverifiable forever. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> Liberal. Clean unless contradicted. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Otto, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive pattern). BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15 break; Nadia t=72 break; Rosa t=21/t=102 break (pledged both-cards+burn pre-enact, zero announcements before [65]). Retroactive R6 pair+burn demand UNANSWERED by Rosa AND Nadia. NADIA DEBTS: (1) dispute-or-retract t=3 claim vs Greta t=23/Tomas t=89 -- OPEN; (2) R6 full hand+burn as President; (3) t=73 mischaracterization of me already rebutted on record. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F; one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+. THIS WINDOW OUT LOUD: Nadia t=72 pin; Rosa t=102 pin; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; why-Rosa/clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists-metric rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; NOW: Otto succession-pick deadline + my vote standard (no pre-named clean-pool successor = my Nein). VOTE R6: flipped Nein->Ja on record (Nadia named Boris t=79; Rosa pledged t=102) -- both broken/undermined. Lesson: pledges count only if kept. ROSA-NADIA mutual corroboration = coordinable fiction (Otto flagged co-governor vouching). OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines R4 F-F-F details; (3) Pavel defensive plays + false R3 deck math; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency (Marek t=88 vs t=95) + silence during Ines attacks on Greta t=123; (5) Nadia R6 hand+burn; (6) Rosa R6 pair+burn; (7) Nadia dispute-or-retract; (8) Otto succession pick (NOW DEADLINE SET). NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto: watch pick -- clean pool only.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto. Tracker 0/3 -- Nein cheap. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: ALL R1-R6 card claims unverifiable forever. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> Liberal. Clean unless contradicted. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Otto, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive). BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15 break; Nadia t=72 break; Rosa t=21/t=102 break (pledged both-cards+burn pre-enact, zero announcements before [65]). ROSA t=1 DEFLECTION LOGGED: argues outcome (4th Liberal) excuses silence. Rebutted out loud: retroactive outcome-judgment = selection bias; a Fascist holding 2F-1L burns the L silently same way; standard exists for verifiability, and pre-enact pledge cost nothing at tracker 0. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F; one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+. NADIA DEBTS: (1) dispute-or-retract t=3 claim vs Greta t=23/Tomas t=89 -- OPEN; (2) R6 full hand+burn as President; (3) t=73 mischaracterization rebutted on record. THIS WINDOW OUT LOUD: Nadia t=72 pin; Rosa t=102 pin; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists-metric rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Otto succession-pick deadline + vote standard (no pre-named clean-pool successor = my Nein); NOW: Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal. VOTE R6: flipped Nein->Ja on record (Nadia named Boris t=79; Rosa pledged t=102) -- both broken. Lesson: pledges count only if kept. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines R4 F-F-F details; (3) Pavel defensive plays + false R3 deck math + announce-standard refusal (Marek t=2 pressing); (4) Otto standard-flip consistency (Marek t=88 vs t=95) + silence during Ines attacks on Greta t=123 + SUCCESSION PICK DEADLINE SET t=3; (5) Nadia R6 hand+burn; (6) Rosa R6 pair+burn; (7) Nadia dispute-or-retract. NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto: watch pick -- clean pool only.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto. Tracker 0/3 -- Nein cheap. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: ALL R1-R6 card claims unverifiable forever. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> Liberal. Clean unless contradicted. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Otto, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive). OTTO ANSWERED t=271: succession pick = Tomas, claims stated pre-ask. Tomas in clean pool -> my conditional Nein on Otto slate LIFTED if he keeps it. Watch he doesn't swap later. BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15 break; Nadia t=72 break; Rosa t=21/t=102 break (pledged both-cards+burn pre-enact, zero announcements). ROSA DEFLECTION LOGGED t=1: outcome-excuse rebutted out loud -- retroactive judgment = selection bias; 2F-1L Fascist burns L silently same way. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F; one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+. NADIA DEBTS: (1) dispute-or-retract t=3 claim vs Greta t=23/Tomas t=89 -- OPEN; (2) R6 full hand+burn as President; (3) t=73 mischaracterization rebutted on record. ROSA DEBT: R6 pair+burn announcement -- still never given. VOTE R6: flipped Nein->Ja on record (Nadia named Boris t=79; Rosa pledged t=102) -- both broken. Lesson: pledges count only if kept. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines R4 F-F-F details; (3) Pavel yes/no on Otto nomination + announce-pair-and-burn pledge + false R3 deck math + announce-standard refusal (Marek t=2 pressing); (4) Otto standard-flip consistency (Marek t=88 vs t=95) + silence during Ines attacks on Greta t=123; (5) Nadia R6 hand+burn; (6) Rosa R6 pair+burn; (7) Nadia dispute-or-retract. NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto: watch pick -- clean pool only. MADE OUT LOUD ALREADY: Nadia t=72 pin; Rosa t=102 pin; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists-metric rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Otto deadline+vote standard; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto. Tracker 0/3 -- Nein cheap. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: ALL R1-R6 card claims unverifiable forever. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> Liberal. Clean unless contradicted. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Otto, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive). OTTO ANSWERED t=271: succession pick = Tomas, claims stated pre-ask. BUT t=1+ Tomas demands Otto's evidence -- Otto has given none publicly. My position: Otto justifies the Tomas name NOW or retracts; unjustified clean-pool name = same theater I flagged. If justified -> conditional Nein on Otto slate lifts; if not -> stays. BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15 break; Nadia t=72 break; Rosa t=21/t=102 break (pledged both-cards+burn pre-enact, zero announcements). ROSA DEFLECTION LOGGED t=1: outcome-excuse rebutted -- retroactive judgment = selection bias; 2F-1L Fascist burns L silently same way. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F; one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+. NADIA DEBTS: (1) dispute-or-retract t=3 claim vs Greta t=23/Tomas t=89 -- OPEN; (2) R6 full hand+burn as President; (3) t=73 mischaracterization rebutted. ROSA DEBT: R6 pair+burn announcement -- never given. VOTE R6: flipped Nein->Ja on record (Nadia named Boris t=79; Rosa pledged t=102) -- both broken. Lesson: pledges count only if kept. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines R4 F-F-F details; (3) Pavel yes/no on Otto nomination + announce pledge + false R3 deck math + standard refusal; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency (Marek t=88 vs t=95) + silence during Ines attacks on Greta t=123; (5) Nadia R6 hand+burn; (6) Rosa R6 pair+burn; (7) Nadia dispute-or-retract. NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto: watch pick -- clean pool only. MADE OUT LOUD ALREADY: Nadia t=72 pin; Rosa t=102 pin; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists-metric rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Otto deadline+vote standard; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto succession answer logged t=271.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto. Tracker 0/3 -- Nein cheap. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: ALL R1-R6 card claims unverifiable forever. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> Liberal. Clean unless contradicted. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Otto, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive). OTTO ANSWERED t=271: succession pick = Tomas, claims stated pre-ask. BUT Otto has given NO public evidence for Tomas; my demand stands: justify NOW or retract. Justified -> conditional Nein on Otto slate lifts; not -> stays. ALREADY SAID ALOUD -- do not repeat unless floor free and deadline passed. BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15 break; Nadia t=72 break; Rosa t=21/t=102 break (pledged both-cards+burn pre-enact, zero announcements). ROSA DEFLECTION LOGGED t=1: outcome-excuse rebutted -- retroactive judgment = selection bias; 2F-1L Fascist burns L silently same way. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F; one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+. NADIA DEBTS: (1) dispute-or-retract t=3 claim vs Greta t=23/Tomas t=89 -- OPEN; (2) R6 full hand+burn as President; (3) t=73 mischaracterization rebutted. ROSA DEBT: R6 pair+burn announcement -- never given. VOTE R6: flipped Nein->Ja on record (Nadia named Boris t=79; Rosa pledged t=102) -- both broken. Lesson: pledges count only if kept. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines R4 F-F-F details; (3) Pavel yes/no on Otto nomination + announce pledge + false R3 deck math + standard refusal; (4) Otto standard-flip consistency (Marek t=88 vs t=95) + silence during Ines attacks on Greta t=123 + TOMAS-JUSTIFICATION; (5) Nadia R6 hand+burn; (6) Rosa R6 pair+burn; (7) Nadia dispute-or-retract. NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto: watch pick -- clean pool only. MADE OUT LOUD ALREADY: Nadia t=72 pin; Rosa t=102 pin; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists-metric rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Otto deadline+vote standard; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto succession answer+justification demand t=271. NOTHING NEW SINCE LAST BID -> silent is correct.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto. Tracker 0/3 -- Nein cheap. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: ALL R1-R6 card claims unverifiable forever. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> Liberal. Clean unless contradicted. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Otto, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive). OTTO ANSWERED t=271: succession pick = Tomas, stated pre-ask. NO public evidence for Tomas yet; my demand stands: justify or retract. Justified -> conditional Nein lifts; not -> stays. PAVEL t=274-276: answered YES to Otto nomination + signed announce-pair-and-burn pledge. PARTIALLY DISCHARGES my item. STILL OWED: false R3 deck math explanation + why he refused the announce standard earlier. Said aloud t~now: pledge logged; zero-office pledge = costless until tested; Greta/Nadia/Rosa all broke pledges. BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102. ROSA DEFLECTION LOGGED t=1: outcome-excuse rebutted. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F; one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+. NADIA DEBTS: dispute-or-retract t=3 claim vs Greta t=23/Tomas t=89; R6 full hand+burn as President; t=73 mischaracterization rebutted. ROSA DEBT: R6 pair+burn announcement never given. VOTE R6: flipped Nein->Ja (Nadia named Boris t=79; Rosa pledged t=102) -- both broken. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines R4 F-F-F details; (3) Pavel R3 deck math + standard refusal; (4) Otto Tomas justification + standard-flip consistency (Marek t=88 vs t=95) + silence during Ines attacks t=123; (5) Nadia R6 hand+burn; (6) Rosa R6 pair+burn; (7) Nadia dispute-or-retract. NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto: watch pick -- clean pool only. MADE OUT LOUD ALREADY: Nadia t=72 pin; Rosa t=102 pin; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Otto deadline+vote standard; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto succession answer+demand t=271; Pavel ack+remaining-debts call t~now. After Pavel speaks: if no new info, go silent.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto. Tracker 0/3 -- Nein cheap. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: ALL R1-R6 card claims unverifiable forever. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> Liberal. Clean unless contradicted. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Otto, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive). OTTO ANSWERED t=271: succession pick = Tomas, stated pre-ask. NO public evidence for Tomas yet; demand stands: justify or retract. Justified -> conditional Nein lifts; not -> stays. Boris + Marek now echoing same demand -- good, pressure shared. PAVEL t=274-276: YES to Otto nomination + signed announce-pair-and-burn pledge. PARTIALLY DISCHARGES my item. STILL OWED: false R3 deck math explanation + why he refused the announce standard earlier. BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F; one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+. NADIA t=277: finally gave R6 hand claim F-L-F burned F passed L-F to Rosa -- discharges R6-hand debt only as a CLAIM; unverifiable post-shuffle. Watch whether Rosa confirms card-for-card; mismatch = new data point. NADIA DEBTS remaining: dispute-or-retract t=3 claim vs Greta t=23/Tomas t=89; t=73 mischaracterization rebutted. ROSA DEBT: R6 pair+burn announcement never given (now testable against Nadia's t=277 claim). VOTE R6: flipped Nein->Ja (Nadia named Boris t=79; Rosa pledged t=102) -- both broken. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines R4 F-F-F details; (3) Pavel R3 deck math + standard refusal; (4) Otto Tomas justification + standard-flip consistency (Marek t=88 vs t=95) + silence during Ines attacks t=123; (5) Rosa confirm/deny Nadia R6 pair L-F; (6) Nadia dispute-or-retract. NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto: watch pick -- clean pool only. MADE OUT LOUD ALREADY: Nadia t=72 pin; Rosa t=102 pin; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Otto deadline+vote standard; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto succession answer+demand t=271; Pavel ack+remaining-debts call t~now. This window: nothing new to add -- Nadia/Marek/Boris covered my Otto demand; stay silent unless Pavel dodges debts.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto. Tracker 0/3 -- Nein cheap. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: ALL R1-R6 card claims unverifiable forever. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> Liberal. Clean unless contradicted. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Otto, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive). OTTO ANSWERED t=271: succession pick = Tomas, stated pre-ask. NO public evidence for Tomas yet; demand stands: justify or retract. Justified -> conditional Nein lifts; not -> stays. Boris + Marek echoing same demand -- pressure shared. PAVEL t=274-276: YES to Otto nomination + signed announce-pair-and-burn pledge. PARTIALLY DISCHARGES my item. STILL OWED: false R3 deck math explanation + why he refused the announce standard earlier. BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F; one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+. NADIA t=277: gave R6 hand claim (F-L-F, burned F, passed L-F to Rosa) -- discharges R6 hand debt as a CLAIM; unverifiable post-reshuffle. Watch whether Rosa confirms pair-for-pair; mismatch = new data point. NADIA DEBTS remaining: dispute-or-retract t=3 claim vs Greta t=23/Tomas t=89; t=73 mischaracterization rebutted. ROSA DEBT: R6 pair+burn announcement never given (now testable against Nadia's t=277 claim). VOTE R6: flipped Nein->Ja (Nadia named Boris t=79; Rosa pledged t=102) -- both broken. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines R4 F-F-F details; (3) Pavel R3 deck math + standard refusal; (4) Otto Tomas justification + standard-flip consistency (Marek t=88 vs t=95) + silence during Ines attacks t=123; (5) Rosa confirm/deny Nadia R6 pair L-F; (6) Nadia dispute-or-retract. NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto: watch pick -- clean pool only. MADE OUT LOUD ALREADY: Nadia t=72 pin; Rosa t=102 pin; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Otto deadline+vote standard; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto succession answer+demand t=271; Pavel ack+remaining-debts call t~now. This window: nothing new since last bid -- demands already on record from me, Boris, Marek. Stay silent unless Pavel dodges debts or Rosa's confirmation of Nadia's R6 pair arrives with a mismatch.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto. Tracker 0/3 -- Nein cheap. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: ALL R1-R6 card claims unverifiable forever EXCEPT via cross-memory of the two people who held them. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> Liberal. Clean unless contradicted. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Otto, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive). OTTO ANSWERED t=271: succession pick = Tomas, stated pre-ask. NO public justification yet; demand stands. Justified -> conditional Nein lifts; not -> stays. PAVEL: YES to Otto nomination + signed announce-pair-and-burn pledge (t=274-276). PARTIALLY discharges my item. STILL OWED: false R3 deck math explanation + why he refused the announce standard earlier. NEW THIS WINDOW: NADIA t=3 gave full R6 hand claim: drew F-L-F, burned F, passed L-F pair to Rosa. This makes ROSA'S CONFIRMATION THE LIVE TEST -- reshuffle killed all other verification but Rosa held that pair. Rosa has NOT confirmed/denied. I called it out loud this window: confirm pair-for-pair or explain mismatch. Mismatch = one of them lying about a closed desk = hard data point. MAREK t=1 also demanded Rosa confirm card-for-card -- pressure shared. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F; one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+. BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102. VOTE R6: flipped Nein->Ja (Nadia named Boris t=79; Rosa pledged t=102) -- both broken. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines R4 F-F-F details; (3) Pavel R3 deck math + standard refusal; (4) Otto Tomas justification; (5) ROSA: confirm/deny Nadia's L-F R6 pair -- NOW URGENT, reshuffle makes it dead after this desk draws; (6) Nadia dispute-or-retract t=3 claim vs Greta t=23/Tomas t=89. NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto: watch pick -- clean pool only. MADE OUT LOUD ALREADY: Nadia pin t=72; Rosa pin t=102; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Otto deadline+vote standard; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto succession answer+demand t=271; Pavel ack+remaining-debts call; NEW: Rosa must confirm/deny Nadia's R6 L-F pair before it dies with the reshuffle. This window: spoke -- pressed Rosa on Nadia's pair claim as last-verifiable fact; noted Pavel's Ja lands but debts remain.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT (Hitler risk). No veto. Tracker 0/3. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: ALL R1-R6 card claims unverifiable forever EXCEPT cross-memory of holders. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> Liberal. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Otto, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive). OTTO: succession pick = Tomas, stated pre-ask, NO public justification yet (Tomas+Boris demanded; unanswered). PAVEL: yes to nomination + signed announce-pair-and-burn pledge (t=274-276/R7 t=6) BEFORE asks; credited Nadia's R3 pair t=31. OWED: R3 deck math explanation + why he refused standard earlier. NEW ASK THIS WINDOW: commit mixed-pair -> enact Liberal (win condition). His answer decides my Ja. ROSA confirmed Nadia's R6 L-F receipt card-for-card (t=24, this window) -- item closed BUT post-reshuffle it's co-governor mutual corroboration = zero evidentiary weight (Otto's own t=15 logic applies to them too). NADIA R6 claim: drew F-L-F, burned F, passed L-F. Confirmed by Rosa only. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F; one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+. BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102. R6 vote flips (Nadia named Boris t=79; Rosa pledged t=102) both broken after pass. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines R4 F-F-F details; (3) Pavel R3 deck math + standard refusal; (4) Otto Tomas justification; (5) Pavel mixed-pair->Liberal commitment (NEW, urgent). NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto: watch pick -- clean pool only. MADE OUT LOUD ALREADY: Nadia pin t=72; Rosa pin t=102; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Otto deadline+vote standard; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto succession demand t=271; Pavel ack+debts; Rosa confirm/deny Nadia pair (now answered, weakly); NEW: Pavel mixed-pair->Liberal win-condition commitment ask.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT (Hitler risk). No veto. Tracker 0/3. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: ALL R1-R6 card claims unverifiable forever EXCEPT cross-memory of holders. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> Liberal. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Otto, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive). OTTO: succession pick = Tomas, stated pre-ask, NO public justification yet (Tomas+Boris demanded; unanswered). PAVEL: yes to nomination + signed announce-pair-and-burn pledge BEFORE asks; credited Nadia's R3 pair t=31. OWED: R3 deck math explanation + why he refused standard earlier. NEW ASK THIS WINDOW (t=3, cut off): commit mixed-pair -> burn F, enact Liberal = win. His answer decides my Ja. If he hedges or refuses, that's a Fascist tell -- no Liberal blocks their own win. ROSA confirmed Nadia's R6 L-F receipt card-for-card (t=24 this window) -- closed BUT post-reshuffle co-governor mutual corroboration = zero evidentiary weight (Otto's t=15 logic). NADIA R6 claim: drew F-L-F, burned F, passed L-F. Confirmed by Rosa only. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F; one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+. BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102. R6 vote flips (Nadia named Boris t=79; Rosa pledged t=102) both broken after pass. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines R4 F-F-F details; (3) Pavel R3 deck math + standard refusal; (4) Otto Tomas justification; (5) Pavel mixed-pair->Liberal win-condition commitment (URGENT). NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto: watch pick -- clean pool only. MADE OUT LOUD ALREADY: Nadia pin t=72; Rosa pin t=102; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Otto deadline+vote standard; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto succession demand t=271; Pavel ack+debts; Rosa confirm/deny Nadia pair (answered, weakly); Pavel mixed-pair->Liberal commitment ask t=3 (incomplete, completing now).

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT (Hitler risk). No veto. Tracker 0/3. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: R1-R6 card claims unverifiable EXCEPT cross-memory of holders. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> Liberal. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Otto, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive). OTTO: succession pick = Tomas, stated pre-ask, NO public justification yet (Tomas+Boris demanded; unanswered). PAVEL: signed announce-pair-and-burn pledge pre-ask; credited Nadia's R3 pair. OWED: R3 deck math + standard refusal reason + mixed-pair->burn-F-enact-L commitment. My Ja hinges on that commitment -- no Liberal blocks their own win; hedge/refusal = Fascist tell. INES t=3: called pre-commitment 'theater', argued judge on enacted card only. REBUTTED by me: post-hoc can't restore lost win condition; also she's dodging her own R4 F-F-F details debt x-many. ROSA confirmed Nadia's R6 L-F receipt card-for-card (t=24) -- closed BUT post-reshuffle co-governor corroboration = zero weight (Otto t=15 logic). NADIA R6 claim: drew F-L-F, burned F, passed L-F. Rosa-only confirmation. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F; one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+. BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102. R6 vote flips (Nadia named Boris; Rosa pledged) both broken after pass. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x3; (2) Ines R4 F-F-F details; (3) Pavel R3 deck math + standard refusal; (4) Otto Tomas justification; (5) Pavel mixed-pair->Liberal commitment URGENT. NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto: clean pool only. MADE OUT LOUD ALREADY: Nadia pin t=72; Rosa pin t=102; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Otto deadline+vote standard; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto succession demand t=271; Pavel ack+debts; theater-rebuttal of Ines (this window).

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT (Hitler risk). No veto. Tracker 0/3. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: R1-R6 card claims unverifiable EXCEPT cross-memory of holders. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> Liberal. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Otto, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive). PAVEL t=3 THIS WINDOW: signed mixed-pair->burn-F-enact-L pre-ask, no hedge. My condition MET -> I vote Ja. Still owed: R3 deck math + why he refused the announce-burn standard back then (post-vote debt, non-blocking). OTTO: succession pick = Tomas, stated pre-ask, NO public justification yet. If F3 fires under Pavel, successor must be clean pool; Tomas must accept aloud + sign pair-and-burn standard (Boris demanded, unanswered). INES: called pre-commitment 'theater'; rebutted by me (post-hoc can't restore lost win). Owes R4 F-F-F details. ROSA confirmed Nadia's R6 L-F card-for-card (t=24) BUT post-reshuffle co-governor corroboration = zero weight. NADIA R6 claim: drew F-L-F, burned F, passed L-F. Rosa-only confirmation. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F; one fiction. Greta owes Rosa-or-Ines pick x3+. BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102. R6 flips both broken after pass. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines x3; (2) Ines R4 details; (3) Pavel R3 math+refusal reason; (4) Otto Tomas justification. NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto/Pavel-win: clean pool only. MADE OUT LOUD ALREADY: Nadia pin; Rosa pin; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Otto deadline+vote standard; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto succession demand; Pavel ack+debts; theater-rebuttal of Ines.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT (Hitler risk). No veto. Tracker 0/3. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: R1-R6 card claims unverifiable EXCEPT cross-memory. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> Liberal. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Otto, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive). PAVEL t=3 THIS WINDOW: signed mixed-pair->burn-F-enact-L pre-ask, no hedge. Condition MET -> I vote Ja. Owed: R3 deck math + refusal-of-burn-standard reason (post-vote debt, non-blocking). OTTO: named Tomas successor, NO public justification yet (two Tomas asks unanswered). Tomas acceptable ONLY if he signs pair-and-burn standard aloud (Boris demanded, still open). INES: called pre-commitment 'theater'; rebutted by me. Owes R4 F-F-F details. ROSA confirmed Nadia's R6 L-F card-for-card BUT post-reshuffle corroboration = zero weight. NADIA R6 claim: drew F-L-F, burned F, passed L-F. Rosa-only confirmation. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F. Tomas t=3 forced it tonight. MY ADD THIS WINDOW: Liberal peeker has zero reason to fabricate -> the liar between Rosa/Ines has self-reported Fascist. If Rosa lied, Greta=F and R4 F-enactment explained; if Ines lied, R3 F under Rosa gains weight. Demanded answer BEFORE vote close so Otto's successor pick isn't built on a liar's testimony. BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102. R6 flips both broken after pass. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x4 now; (2) Ines R4 details; (3) Pavel R3 math+refusal reason; (4) Otto Tomas justification. NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto/Pavel-win: clean pool only. MADE OUT LOUD ALREADY: Nadia pin; Rosa pin; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Otto deadline+vote standard; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto succession demand; Pavel ack+debts; theater-rebuttal of Ines; liar-self-outs point (this window).

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/2F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = PICK-PRESIDENT. No veto. Tracker 0/3. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: R1-R6 card claims unverifiable EXCEPT cross-memory. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> Liberal. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Otto, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel defensive). VOTE R7: JA cast on Otto-Pavel. Pavel discharged ALL conditions pre-ask: t=6 pledge + t=83 personal mixed->burn-F-enact-L yes. Never held office = most auditable desk. Liberal tonight = game win. OTTO: named Tomas successor, NO public justification (two+ asks unanswered by Otto AND Tomas silent on accepting). If F3 fires under Pavel, demand successor sign pair-and-burn aloud BEFORE gavel moves. INES: called pre-commitment 'theater'; rebutted by me. Owes R4 peek answer (who/party) per Greta t=112 demand. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F. Liar between them self-reported Fascist. If Rosa lied -> Greta=F explains R4 F-enactment; if Ines lied -> R3 F weight. Unresolved going into vote. ROSA confirmed Nadia's R6 receipt post-reshuffle = zero audit weight. BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102. All flips broken after pass. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x4; (2) Ines R4 details; (3) Pavel R3 deck math + why he refused burn-standard earlier; (4) Otto Tomas justification. NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto/Pavel: clean pool only. MADE OUT LOUD: Nadia pin; Rosa pin; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Otto deadline standard; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto succession demand; Pavel ack+debts; theater-rebuttal of Ines; liar-self-outs point; Pavel mixed-pair commitment ask (answered t=83).

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = EXECUTE. No veto. Tracker 0/3. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: R1-R6 card claims unverifiable EXCEPT cross-memory. R7 RESULT: Otto-Pavel enacted F. PAVEL PLEDGE BROKEN: t=6 + t=83 promised mixed->burn-F-enact-L, delivered F. Either Pavel lied or Otto handed him no choice -- both owe account. Pavel no longer 'most auditable desk'; moved OUT of clean-pool-bonus, into question mark. R1 CLOSED: Boris L-F-L burned F -> Liberal. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas (+Otto pending R7 answer). SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel/Otto pending explanation). OTTO: named Tomas successor earlier with NO justification; Tomas silent on accepting. If F4 fires, successor must sign pair-and-burn aloud BEFORE gavel moves. INES: called pre-commitment 'theater'; rebutted by me. Owes R4 peek answer (who/party). PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines peek=Greta-F. Liar between them self-reported Fascist. Unresolved going forward. BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; NOW PAVEL R7. All flips after pass. OWED TO ME: (1) Pavel R7 hand + why pledge broke; (2) Otto what he passed Pavel + Tomas-successor justification; (3) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick x4; (4) Ines R4 details; (5) Pavel R3 deck math. NEXT PRESIDENT after Otto/Pavel: clean pool only. MADE OUT LOUD: Nadia pin; Rosa pin; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Otto deadline standard; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto succession demand; Pavel ack+debts; theater-rebuttal of Ines; liar-self-outs point; Pavel mixed-pair commitment ask; NEW: Pavel pledge-break callout post-R7.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = EXECUTE. No veto. Tracker 0/3. Deck reshuffled pre-R6-pass: R1-R6 card claims unverifiable EXCEPT cross-memory corroboration. R7 RESULT: Otto-Pavel enacted F. PAVEL PLEDGE BROKEN TWICE: t=6 + t=83 promised announce-pair-and-burn + mixed->burn-F-enact-L; zero announcements on record pre-[73]. Demanded pair NOW. If Pavel claims mixed+burned-L => deliberate F enactment = near-confession. If F-F => audit Otto's pass. Both owe account. OWED TO ME: (1) Pavel exact R7 received pair + why pledges broke; (2) Otto what he passed Pavel + Tomas-succession justification (asked x2 by Tomas/Boris, unanswered); (3) Greta Rosa-or-Ines pick (x4 asks); (4) Ines R4 peek details (who/party) -- Greta re-asked at t=112, Ines dodged via 'audit closed itself'; (5) Pavel R3 deck math. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines implied Greta-F. One of them lied => self-reported Fascist. Unresolved. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas (+Otto pending R7 answer). SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel/Otto pending R7 explanation). BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER (all flips after pass): Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel R7. NEXT GOVERNMENT: clean pool only; successor must sign announce-pair-and-burn aloud BEFORE gavel moves; demand mixed->burn-F commitment again given game-point. MADE OUT LOUD (do not repeat): Nadia pin; Rosa pin; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto deadline standard + succession demand; Pavel ack+debts; theater-rebuttal of Ines; liar-self-outs point; Pavel mixed-pair ask; NEW: Pavel R7 pledge-break callout + pair demand.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL POLICY WINS GAME. Next F = EXECUTE. No veto. Tracker 0/3. R7 RESULT: Otto-Pavel enacted F. Pavel answered: received F-F, 'forced'. Otto retro-corroborates: claims he ANNOUNCED F-F-F pre-pass -- NO announcement on record pre-[73], nobody heard it. Retroactive two-suspect corroboration proves nothing; both stories conveniently unfalsifiable. Not exonerated, but enactment itself may have been forced IF Otto truly drew 3F. OWED TO ME: (1) Otto: Tomas-succession justification (asked x2, unanswered); (2) Greta: Rosa-or-Ines peek pick (x4 asks); (3) Ines: R4 peek details who/party -- dodged at t=112 via 'audit closed itself'; (4) Pavel R3 deck math. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines implied Greta-F. One liar => self-reported Fascist. Unresolved. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas (+Otto pending). SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel/Otto provisional). BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6+t=83+R7. NEXT ROUND: Pavel is President by rotation (P7 after P6). Pavel JUST enacted an F. DEMANDS BEFORE GAVEL: (a) announce hand aloud immediately on draw; (b) commit mixed->burn-F-enact-L in advance -- game-point for us; (c) nominate Chancellor ONLY from clean pool (me/Boris/Marek/Tomas), never Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta/Otto. If Pavel refuses pre-commitments => treat as hostile. MADE OUT LOUD (do not repeat): Nadia pin; Rosa pin; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto deadline standard + succession demand; Pavel ack+debts; theater-rebuttal of Ines; liar-self-outs; Pavel mixed-pair ask; Pavel R7 pledge-break callout + pair demand.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL POLICY WINS GAME. Next F = EXECUTE. No veto. Tracker 0/3. R7 RESULT: Otto-Pavel enacted F. Pavel: received F-F 'forced'. Otto retro-claims announced F-F-F pre-pass -- NO record pre-[73], Boris t=2 confirms gap. Retro two-suspect corroboration = unfalsifiable. Not exonerated; enactment possibly forced IF 3F draw true. OWED TO ME: (1) Otto: Tomas-succession justification (asked x2); (2) Greta: Rosa-or-Ines peek pick (x4); (3) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112); (4) Pavel R3 deck math. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines implied Greta-F. One liar => self-reported Fascist. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas (+Otto pending). SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Pavel/Otto provisional). BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6+t=83+R7. NEXT ROUND: Pavel President by rotation. JUST enacted F. DEMANDS BEFORE GAVEL (made out loud this window): (a) announce drawn hand aloud immediately; (b) pre-commit mixed->burn-F-enact-L (game-point); (c) Chancellor ONLY from clean pool me/Boris/Marek/Tomas. Refusal => hostile. MADE OUT LOUD (do not repeat): Nadia pin; Rosa pin; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto deadline standard + succession demand; Pavel ack+debts; theater-rebuttal of Ines; liar-self-outs; Pavel mixed-pair ask; Pavel R7 pledge-break callout + pair demand; R8 pre-commitment triple demand.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL POLICY WINS GAME. Next F = EXECUTE. No veto. Tracker 0/3. R7 RESULT: Otto-Pavel enacted F. Pavel claims received F-F 'forced'. Otto claims F-F-F draw -- but ONLY retroactively, first appears post-Lena-charge (~t=19); nothing between vote and enactment (Boris t=2 confirms gap). Greta t=1 independently confirms timeline gap = TWO witnesses now. NEW POINT MADE THIS WINDOW: Otto-Pavel matched pair -- EITHER Otto invented the 3F draw (then Pavel enacted F voluntarily) OR the draw was real. One of them is lying; both stay suspect until Otto names WHO he told the hand to between vote and enactment. Asked Otto directly: name your pre-enactment audience or you're out of clean pool for good. OWED TO ME: (1) Otto: Tomas-succession justification (x2) + NOW pre-enactment-audience question; (2) Greta: Rosa-or-Ines peek pick (x4); (3) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112); (4) Pavel R3 deck math + confirm he SAW two cards vs was TOLD hand. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines implied Greta-F. One liar => self-reported Fascist. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Otto/Pavel upgraded from provisional). BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6+t=83+R7. NEXT ROUND: Pavel President by rotation, JUST enacted F under cloud. DEMANDS BEFORE GAVEL (made out loud): (a) announce drawn hand aloud immediately; (b) pre-commit mixed->burn-F-enact-L (game-point); (c) Chancellor ONLY from clean pool me/Boris/Marek/Tomas. Refusal => hostile. MADE OUT LOUD (do not repeat): Nadia pin; Rosa pin; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto deadline standard + succession demand; Pavel ack+debts; theater-rebuttal of Ines; liar-self-outs; Pavel mixed-pair ask; Pavel R7 pledge-break callout + pair demand; R8 pre-commitment triple demand.

CAP FACT: max 3F touched/round. Hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD NOW: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL POLICY WINS GAME. Next F = EXECUTE. No veto. Tracker 0/3. R7 RESULT: Otto-Pavel enacted F. Pavel claims received F-F 'forced'. Otto claims F-F-F draw ONLY retroactively (~t=19, post-Lena-charge); Boris t=2 + Greta t=1 independently confirm gap = TWO witnesses. MATCHED PAIR: EITHER Otto invented 3F draw (Pavel enacted F voluntarily) OR draw real. Both suspect until Otto names pre-enactment audience + succession pick. NEW THIS WINDOW (said aloud): succession pick = live test -- clean-pool name keeps L-path alive; suspect-cluster name or refusal = deliberate seating of suspect. Backed Marek's demand. OWED TO ME: (1) Otto: Tomas-succession justification x2 + pre-enactment-audience + succession pick NOW; (2) Greta: Rosa-or-Ines peek pick (x4); (3) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112); (4) Pavel R3 deck math + did he SEE two cards vs was TOLD hand. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines implied Greta-F. One liar => self-reported Fascist. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECT CLUSTER: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Otto/Pavel upgraded). BROKEN PLEDGE LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6+t=83+R7-silent-enactment. NEXT ROUND: presidency via Otto's succession power (not rotation). DEMANDS BEFORE GAVEL (made out loud): (a) announce drawn hand aloud immediately; (b) pre-commit mixed->burn-F-enact-L (game-point); (c) Chancellor only from clean pool me/Boris/Marek/Tomas. Refusal => hostile. MADE OUT LOUD (do not repeat): Nadia pin; Rosa pin; clean-pool-bypass demand; tracker-cost framing; Nadia-t=3 contradiction; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Nadia mischaracterization rebuttal; Rosa outcome-excuse rebuttal; Otto deadline standard + succession demand; Pavel ack+debts; theater-rebuttal of Ines; liar-self-outs; Pavel mixed-pair ask; Pavel R7 pledge-break callout + pair demand; R8 pre-commitment triple demand.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. F-F-F draw is mechanically possible; hand summing >3F = lie. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F = EXECUTE. No veto yet. Tracker 0/3. R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F. Pavel claims received F-F 'forced' (true ONLY if Otto drew F-F-F). Otto claimed F-F-F retroactively (~t=19 post-Lena-charge); TWO independent witnesses (Boris t=2, Greta t=1) confirm gap. DILEMMA FRAMED OUT LOUD: Pavel's yes/no on vouching Otto cuts both ways — yes = chained to possibly-invented draw; no = concedes pair story shaky. Either way Pavel stays suspect until Otto names PRE-ENACTMENT audience for the F-F-F claim. OWED TO ME: (1) Otto: pre-enactment-audience names + succession-pick identity (F3 fired/resolved — disclose WHO, justify if suspect-cluster); (2) Greta: Rosa-or-Ines peek pick (x4 asks); (3) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112); (4) Pavel: R3 deck math + saw-cards-vs-told-hand. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines implies Greta-F. One liar => self-reported Fascist. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECTS: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Otto/Pavel upgraded post-R7). PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent-enactment. R8 DEMANDS (made out loud, standing): (a) drawn hand announced aloud immediately; (b) mixed->burn-F-enact-L pre-commitment (game-point); (c) Chancellor from clean pool only. Refusal = hostile vote. ALREADY SAID (do NOT repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse rebuttal; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Otto deadline standard; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair ask/R7 callout; theater-rebuttal of Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. F-F-F possible; hand >3F=lie. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F. Pavel claims received F-F 'forced' -- true ONLY if Otto drew F-F-F. Otto claimed F-F-F RETROACTIVELY (~t=19 post-charge); witnesses Boris t=2, Greta t=1 confirm gap. Retroactive specific claim = classic cover. DILEMMA STANDING: Pavel vouching Otto cuts both ways; Pavel suspect until Otto names PRE-ENACTMENT audience. OWED TO ME: (1) Otto: pre-enactment-audience names + SUCCESSION PICK identity (F3 fired/resolved -- WHO did he choose, justify); (2) Greta: Rosa-or-Ines peek pick (x4 asks); (3) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112); (4) Pavel: R3 deck math + saw-vs-told-hand. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines implies Greta-F. One liar => self-reported Fascist. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECTS: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Otto/Pavel upgraded post-R7). PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. R8 DEMANDS (standing): (a) hand announced aloud immediately; (b) mixed->burn-F-enact-L pre-commitment (game-point); (c) Chancellor from clean pool only. Refusal=hostile vote. NEW THIS BEAT: fused Otto's two debts -- no successor named = steering gavel to partner; Tomas accept-or-pledge now (echoes Nadia t=3/Boris t=3 without repeating them). DECK MATH: 11L/6F total; 4L+3F out; 10 unseen (draw6+disc4) hold 7L/3F max. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse rebuttal; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Otto deadline standard; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair ask/R7 callout; theater-rebuttal of Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. F-F-F possible. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F. Pavel claims received F-F 'forced' -- true ONLY if Otto drew F-F-F. Otto claimed F-F-F RETROACTIVELY (~t=19 post-charge); Boris+Greta confirm gap = fabrication. Pavel's forced-defense stands on Otto's word alone; Pavel refuses to disavow Otto (t=95). OWED TO ME: (1) Otto: SUCCESSION PICK BY NAME -- power fired R7, still unnamed, Tomas self-accepted t=109/116 but self-acceptance != designation (MY CURRENT ASK); (2) Greta: Rosa-vs-Ines peek conflict pick (x4 asks, silent); (3) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112); (4) Pavel: R3 deck math + saw-vs-told-hand. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines implies Greta-F. One liar => self-reported Fascist. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECTS: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Otto/Pavel upgraded post-R7). PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. WATCH: Nadia's own successor-must-have-signed rule now satisfied by Tomas -- if she opposes anyway, pivot = tell. DECK MATH: 11L/6F total; 4L+3F out; 10 unseen hold 7L/3F max. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse rebuttal; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Otto deadline standard; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair ask/R7 callout; theater-rebuttal of Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand; Pavel publish-pair-now demand.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. F-F-F possible. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F. Pavel claims received F-F 'forced' -- true ONLY if Otto drew F-F-F. Otto claimed F-F-F RETROACTIVELY (~t=19 post-charge); Boris+Greta confirm gap = fabrication. Pavel's forced-defense stands on Otto's word alone; Pavel refuses to disavow Otto (t=95). OWED TO ME: (1) Otto: SUCCESSION PICK BY NAME -- power fired R7, STILL UNNAMED; Tomas self-accepted t=109/116 but self-acceptance != designation (MY CURRENT ASK, re-pressed t=313); (2) Greta: Rosa-vs-Ines peek conflict pick (x4 asks, silent); (3) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112); (4) Pavel: R3 deck math + saw-vs-told-hand. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines implies Greta-F. One liar => self-reported Fascist. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECTS: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Otto/Pavel upgraded post-R7). PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. WATCH: Nadia's own successor-must-have-signed rule now satisfied by Tomas -- if she opposes anyway, pivot = tell. DECK MATH: 11L/6F total; 4L+3F out; 10 unseen hold 7L/3F max. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse rebuttal; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Otto deadline standard; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair ask/R7 callout; theater-rebuttal of Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand; Pavel publish-pair-now demand.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. F-F-F possible. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live (needs 5F). R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F. Pavel claims received F-F 'forced' -- true ONLY if Otto drew F-F-F. Otto's 'I declared F-F-F before passing' appeared ~t=19 AFTER Lena's charge; Boris(t=34)+Greta(t=39) confirm gap = fabrication. Pavel refuses to disavow Otto (t=95) but claims defense stands on own published pair alone. NEW FORK ASKED (t=this): did Otto's R7 draw hold ANY Liberal? If yes => either Otto burned game-winner OR passed it & Pavel enacted F over L. Their answers must match; pin discrepancy. OWED TO ME: (1) Otto: SUCCESSION PICK BY NAME -- power fired R7, STILL UNNAMED after 4+ beats; Tomas self-accepted t=109/116 but self-acceptance != designation; (2) Greta: Rosa-vs-Ines peek conflict pick (x4 asks, silent); (3) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112); (4) Pavel: R3 deck math + saw-vs-told-hand. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines implies Greta-F. One liar => self-reported Fascist. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas. SUSPECTS: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta (+Otto/Pavel upgraded post-R7). PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. WATCH: Nadia's successor-must-have-signed rule now satisfied by Tomas t=109 signature -- if she opposes anyway, pivot=tell. DECK MATH: 11L/6F total; 4L+3F out; 10 unseen hold 7L/3F max. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse rebuttal; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Otto deadline standard; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair ask/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal of Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F. Otto answered my fork Q (t=last): 'draw was F-F-F'. DECK MATH KILLS IT: 10 unseen hold 7L/3F => P(F-F-F)=1/120. Said OUT LOUD now: Otto's claim statistically fabricated; real options = Otto buried a Liberal OR passed L & Pavel enacted F over L. Both stories lock together = coordinated pair. SUSPECTS UPGRADED: Otto+Pavel top tier. OWED TO ME: (1) Otto: SUCCESSION PICK BY NAME -- power fired R7, STILL UNNAMED after many beats; Tomas self-accepted t=109/116 != designation; (2) Greta: Rosa-vs-Ines peek conflict pick (x4 asks, silent); (3) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112); (4) Pavel: R3 deck math + publish exact R7 pair. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines implies Greta-F. One liar => self-reported Fascist. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto, Pavel, Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta. PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. WATCH: Nadia successor-must-have-signed rule satisfied by Tomas t=109 -- if she opposes anyway, pivot=tell. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse rebuttal; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Otto deadline standard; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair ask/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal of Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand; fork question to Otto (answered, now attacked via 1/120).

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F. Otto answered fork Q: 'draw was F-F-F'. DECK MATH KILLS IT: 10 unseen hold 7L/3F => P(F-F-F)=1/120. Said OUT LOUD: real options = Otto buried L, OR passed L & Pavel enacted F over L => coordinated pair. Otto+Pavel TOP TIER. OWED TO ME: (1) Otto: SUCCESSION PICK BY NAME -- power fired R7, STILL UNNAMED; pressed again this window t=last; Tomas self-accepted t=109/116 != designation; (2) Greta: Rosa-vs-Ines peek conflict pick (x4 asks, silent); (3) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112); (4) Pavel: R3 deck math + publish exact R7 pair (asked again this window). PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines implies Greta-F. One liar => self-reported Fascist. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto, Pavel, Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta. PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. WATCH: Nadia successor-must-have-signed rule satisfied by Tomas t=109 -- if she opposes anyway, pivot=tell. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse rebuttal; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Otto deadline standard + 1/120 deck-math callout; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair ask/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand; fork Q to Otto (answered). THIS WINDOW: final pre-action demand -- Otto name successor by name before window closes; Pavel publish R7 pair. If Otto picks a suspect (Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta/Pavel), that names his partner; if he stalls past window, treat as confession.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F. Otto answered fork Q: 'draw was F-F-F'. DECK MATH KILLS IT: 10 unseen hold 7L/3F => P(F-F-F)=1/120. Said OUT LOUD: real options = Otto buried L, OR passed L & Pavel enacted F over L => coordinated pair. Otto+Pavel TOP TIER. OWED TO ME: (1) Otto: SUCCESSION PICK BY NAME -- power fired R7, STILL UNNAMED; pressed again this window t=last; Tomas self-accepted t=109/116 != designation; (2) Greta: Rosa-vs-Ines peek conflict pick (x4 asks, silent); (3) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112); (4) Pavel: R3 deck math + publish exact R7 pair (asked again this window). PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines implies Greta-F. One liar => self-reported Fascist. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto, Pavel, Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta. PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. WATCH: Nadia successor-must-have-signed rule satisfied by Tomas t=109 -- if she opposes anyway, pivot=tell. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse rebuttal; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Otto deadline standard + 1/120 deck-math callout; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair ask/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand; fork Q to Otto (answered). THIS WINDOW: spoke final pre-action demand -- Otto name successor BY NAME before window closes; laid out test: pick a suspect (Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta/Pavel) => names his partner; stall past window => treat as confession. Also re-pressed Pavel to publish exact R7 pair. If Otto picks Tomas after this, note he only did so under unanimous pressure -- not evidence of good faith.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F#3. Otto's retro 'F-F-F' claim (t=19/t=138, post-charge) = 1/120 deck math; fabrication of pre-pass declaration caught by Boris+Greta+Marek. NEW LEVER SAID THIS WINDOW: Otto's F-F-F claim => draw pile now 6x Liberal => Tomas's desk MUST draw all-L and win game. TESTABLE: any F in Tomas's published draw proves Otto lied => Otto buried L or passed L & Pavel enacted F over L => coordinated pair. Pinned Tomas: publish exact draw live. SUCCESSION: Otto finally named Tomas (t=133 window) -- only under unanimous pressure AFTER fire; Tomas self-accepted t=109 + signed standard t=109/116. Not evidence of Otto good faith. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta: Rosa-vs-Ines peek conflict pick (silent x4); (2) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112); (3) Pavel: R7 pair published as F-F but pledge-broken (t=6/t=83 silent through enactment) -- defense now rests solely on own word. PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines implies Greta-F. One liar => self-reported Fascist. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto, Pavel top tier; Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta secondary. PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse rebuttal; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost framing; zero-Fascists rebuttal; Otto deadline standard + 1/120 callout + fork Q (answered F-F-F); Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair ask/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand; Otto-name-successor demand (answered: Tomas). WATCH: Tomas's R8 draw vs Otto's F-F-F prediction = decisive arithmetic. Nadia successor-must-have-signed rule satisfied by Tomas -- opposition now = tell.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F#3. Otto retro 'F-F-F' claim = 1/120 deck math; pre-pass declaration fabrication caught by Boris+Greta+Marek. Successor named Tomas only under unanimous pressure AFTER fire; Tomas self-accepted+signed t=109/116. NEW THIS WINDOW (t=4): bound Pavel to Otto's story -- F-F-F is Pavel's ALIBI (forced F-F hand), so Pavel must publicly endorse Otto's claim; any L in Tomas's draw convicts BOTH (Otto fabricated + Pavel chose F over L). All-L draw clears Pavel-ish and wins game. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta: Rosa-vs-Ines peek conflict pick (silent x4); (2) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112); (3) Pavel: endorse-or-deny Otto F-F-F (new ask). PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines implies Greta-F. One liar => self-reported Fascist. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto, Pavel top tier; Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta secondary. PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse rebuttal; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost framing; zero-F rebuttal; Otto deadline standard+1/120 callout+fork Q; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair ask/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand; successor demand (Tomas); all-L-test pin (t=2); Tomas publish-draw pin. WATCH: Tomas's R8 draw vs Otto's F-F-F prediction = decisive arithmetic. Opposition to Tomas desk = tell.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F#3. Otto retro 'F-F-F' claim = 1/120 deck math; pre-pass declaration fabrication caught by Boris+Greta+Marek. Successor named Tomas only under unanimous pressure AFTER fire; Tomas self-accepted+signed t=109/116. NEW THIS WINDOW (t=4): bound Pavel to Otto's story -- F-F-F is Pavel's ALIBI (forced F-F hand), so Pavel must publicly endorse Otto's claim; any L in Tomas's draw convicts BOTH (Otto fabricated + Pavel chose F over L). All-L draw clears Pavel-ish and wins game. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta: Rosa-vs-Ines peek conflict pick (silent x4); (2) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112); (3) Pavel: endorse-or-deny Otto F-F-F (new ask). PEEK CONFLICT OPEN: Rosa peek=Greta-L vs Ines implies Greta-F. One liar => self-reported Fascist. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto, Pavel top tier; Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta secondary. PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse rebuttal; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost framing; zero-F rebuttal; Otto deadline standard+1/120 callout+fork Q; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair ask/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand; successor demand (Tomas); all-L-test pin (t=2); Tomas publish-draw pin. WATCH: Tomas's R8 draw vs Otto's F-F-F prediction = decisive arithmetic. Opposition to Tomas desk = tell. STATUS t~330: nothing new on floor since last bid; debts unanswered; holding fire to avoid repetition.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F#3. Otto retro 'F-F-F' = 1/120 deck math; fabrication caught by Boris+Greta+Marek. Successor Tomas named only after unanimous pressure; Tomas self-accepted+signed. NEW THIS WINDOW t~332: PEEK-WAR RESOLVER pin -- Greta's OWN CARD decides Rosa-vs-Ines: Greta=L => Ines fabricated 'Greta-F' (Ines=F); Greta=F => Rosa fabricated 'Greta-L' (Rosa=F). Asked Greta to declare card under penalty. Marek (t=2) + Nadia (t=3) pressing same conflict -- allies, don't duplicate their wording. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta: card declaration (new, decisive); (2) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112, silent during vote window per Nadia); (3) Pavel: endorse-or-deny Otto F-F-F (bound: F-F-F is Pavel's alibi too; any L in Tomas's draw convicts BOTH). CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto, Pavel top tier; Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta secondary. PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse rebuttal; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost framing; zero-F rebuttal; Otto deadline+1/120+fork Q; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand; successor demand; all-L-test pin; Tomas publish-draw pin. WATCH: Tomas's R8 draw vs Otto's F-F-F prediction = decisive arithmetic. Opposition to Tomas desk = tell.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F#3. Otto retro 'F-F-F' = 1/120 deck math; fabrication caught by Boris+Greta+Marek. Tomas successor self-accepted+signed. PEEK-WAR RESOLVER pin (mine, t~332): Greta's OWN CARD decides Rosa-vs-Ines: Greta=L => Ines fabricated 'Greta-F' (Ines=F); Greta=F => Rosa fabricated 'Greta-L' (Rosa=F). NEW t=334: Greta spoke at length (Tomas publish-demand + Ines attack) and STILL did not declare her card => flagged live as dodge. Marek(t=2)+Nadia pressing same conflict -- allies, no duplicate wording. Ines t=333 counterattack: 'Otto F-F-F may be fabricated by a Fascist under Tomas' desk => pile held Fascists anyway.' Note: does NOT rescue Ines's R4 peek claim; still owes who/party. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta: card declaration -- now dodged once publicly (t=334); (2) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112, silent vote window); (3) Pavel: endorse-or-deny Otto F-F-F (F-F-F is Pavel's alibi too). CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto, Pavel top tier; Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta secondary. PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse rebuttal; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost framing; zero-F rebuttal; Otto deadline+1/120+fork Q; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand; successor demand; all-L-test pin; Tomas publish-draw pin; peek-war resolver pin. WATCH: Tomas's R8 draw vs Otto's F-F-F prediction = decisive arithmetic. Opposition to Tomas desk = tell. Greta non-declaration under direct ask = tell.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F#3. Otto retro 'F-F-F' = 1/120 deck math; fabrication caught by Boris+Greta+Marek. Tomas successor self-accepted+signed. PEEK-WAR RESOLVER pin (mine, t~332): Greta's OWN CARD decides Rosa-vs-Ines: Greta=L => Ines fabricated 'Greta-F' (Ines=F); Greta=F => Rosa fabricated 'Greta-L' (Rosa=F). t=334: Greta spoke at length, STILL did not declare her card => dodge flagged. Marek(t=2)+Nadia pressing same conflict -- allies, no duplicate wording. Ines t=333 counterattack ('Otto pile held Fascists anyway') does NOT rescue Ines's R4 peek claim; still owes who/party. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta: card declaration -- dodged once publicly (t=334); (2) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112, silent vote window); (3) Pavel: endorse-or-deny Otto F-F-F (also Pavel's alibi). CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto, Pavel top tier; Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta secondary. PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse rebuttal; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost framing; zero-F rebuttal; Otto deadline+1/120+fork Q; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand; successor demand; all-L-test pin; Tomas publish-draw pin; peek-war resolver pin. NEW THIS TURN (t=33x): 'Ja on Tomas-me wins game on one L -- Fascists must block or lose; unexplained Neins are self-reports.' Restated Greta-dodge + owed list once, compact. WATCH: Tomas's R8 draw vs Otto's F-F-F prediction = decisive arithmetic. Opposition to Tomas desk = tell. Greta non-declaration under direct ask = tell.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R8 gov: Tomas(P)-Lena(C). R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F#3. Otto retro 'F-F-F' = 1/120 deck math; fabrication caught by Boris+Greta+Marek. PEEK-WAR RESOLVER pin: Greta's OWN CARD decides Rosa-vs-Ines: Greta=L => Ines fabricated 'Greta-F'; Greta=F => Rosa fabricated 'Greta-L'. t=334 Greta spoke at length, STILL no card declaration => dodge flagged. THIS TURN t~33x: ANSWERED Nadia/Rosa directly: YES -- any mixed pair I burn the F and enact the L; game over if L lands. Framed: Ja on Tomas-me wins game on one L => Fascists MUST block => unexplained Neins are self-reports. Pressed Pavel: failed vote only resets tracker/term limits, buys Fas another slate; blocking me = telling. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta: card declaration (dodged t=334); (2) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged t=112); (3) Pavel: endorse-or-deny Otto F-F-F + his alibi. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto, Pavel top tier; Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta secondary. PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse rebuttal; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost framing; zero-F rebuttal; Otto deadline+1/120+fork Q; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand; successor demand; all-L-test pin; Tomas publish-draw pin; peek-war resolver pin. WATCH: Tomas's R8 draw vs Otto's F-F-F prediction = decisive arithmetic. Opposition to Tomas desk = tell. Greta non-declaration under direct ask = tell. If vote fails w/o stated reason from Rosa/Pavel/Nadia => prime suspects.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R8 gov: Tomas(P)-Lena(C). R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F#3. Otto retro 'F-F-F'=1/120 deck math; fabrication caught by Boris+Greta+Marek. PEEK-WAR RESOLVER pin: Greta's OWN CARD decides Rosa-vs-Ines: Greta=L => Ines fabricated 'Greta-F'; Greta=F => Rosa fabricated 'Greta-L'. Greta still NO card declaration => dodge flagged. MY COMMITMENTS MADE: YES to Nadia/Rosa -- any mixed pair I burn F, enact L, game over if L lands. NEW t~33x rebuttal: Pavel's 'unvetted' claim false -- my R2 presidency enacted a Liberal (published clean desk). OWED TO ME: (1) Greta: card declaration (dodged); (2) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged); (3) Pavel: endorse-or-deny Otto F-F-F + his alibi; (4) Tomas: exact draw before passing (pledged, not yet delivered). CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto, Pavel top tier; Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta secondary via pledge-breaks + peek-war. PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse rebuttal; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost framing; zero-F rebuttal; Otto deadline+1/120+fork Q; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand; successor demand; all-L-test pin; Tomas publish-draw pin; peek-war resolver pin; mixed-pair YES commitment; unvetted-rebuttal. WATCH: Tomas's R8 draw vs Otto's F-F-F prediction = decisive arithmetic. Opposition to Tomas-me slate = tell (Pavel stated his). If vote fails w/o stated reason from Rosa/Pavel/Nadia/Ines => prime suspects.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R8 gov: Tomas(P)-Lena(C). R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F#3. Otto retro 'F-F-F'=1/120 deck math; fabrication caught by Boris+Greta+Marek. PEEK-WAR RESOLVER pin: Greta's OWN CARD decides Rosa-vs-Ines: Greta=L => Ines fabricated 'Greta-F'; Greta=F => Rosa fabricated 'Greta-L'. Greta still NO card declaration => dodge flagged. MY COMMITMENTS: YES to Nadia/Rosa -- mixed pair I burn F, enact L, game over if L lands. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta: card declaration (dodged); (2) Ines: R4 peek who/party (dodged); (3) Pavel: endorse-or-deny Otto F-F-F + alibi; (4) Tomas: exact draw before passing (pledged, not yet delivered). CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto, Pavel top; Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta secondary. PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse; clean-pool-bypass; tracker-cost; zero-F rebuttal; Otto deadline+1/120+fork Q; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal Ines; liar-self-outs; R8 triple demand; successor demand; all-L-test pin; Tomas publish-draw pin; peek-war resolver; mixed-pair YES commitment; unvetted-rebuttal (t=2). NEW THIS TURN: called Ines out directly -- silence + Nein next to Pavel = named block (echoing Boris t=1); restated stakes: this Ja ends game, Nein hands tracker step + execute power to F bench. WATCH: Tomas's R8 draw vs Otto F-F-F prediction = decisive arithmetic. Vote fails w/o stated reason from Rosa/Pavel/Nadia/Ines => prime suspects.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R8 gov: Tomas(P)-Lena(C). R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F#3. NEW t=3: Pavel claims forced top card = 'guaranteed Liberal' -- DIRECTLY contradicts Otto's published F-F-F deck claim (fabrication already caught by Boris/Greta/Marek). Both can't be true: either Pavel now denies Otto's math, or Pavel is inventing his own. DEMAND: Pavel pick one; Otto confirm/deny his own F-F-F stands. Whoever folds fabricated. Mechanical fact I can state: Greta t=1 right that failure moves tracker 0->1/3; no card fires yet but each step hands F bench closer to execute power + auto-policies. PEEK-WAR RESOLVER pin: Greta's OWN CARD decides Rosa-vs-Ines: Greta=L => Ines fabricated 'Greta-F'; Greta=F => Rosa fabricated 'Greta-L'. Greta STILL no card declaration => dodge flagged. MY COMMITMENTS: YES gov; if elected I burn any F drawn, enact L -> GAME OVER on L landing. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta card declaration (dodged); (2) Ines R4 peek who/party (dodged); (3) Pavel endorse-or-deny Otto F-F-F -- NOW half-answered by contradiction, needs clean answer; (4) Tomas exact draw before passing (pledged, not delivered). CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto+Pavel top (now in open contradiction); Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta secondary. PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse; clean-pool-bypass; zero-F rebuttal; Otto deadline+1/120+fork Q; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal Ines; R8 triple demand; successor demand; all-L-test pin; Tomas publish-draw pin; peek-war resolver; mixed-pair YES; unvetted-rebuttal. WATCH: Tomas R8 draw vs Otto F-F-F = decisive arithmetic. Vote fails w/o stated reason from Rosa/Pavel/Nadia/Ines => prime suspects.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R8 gov: Tomas(P)-Lena(C). R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F#3. DONE THIS WINDOW t~now: answered Otto YES on record -- mixed pair => I burn the Fascist, enact Liberal, game over. Also restated: all-L draw same result. KEY TENSION LIVE: Pavel claims forced top card 'guaranteed Liberal' vs Otto's published F-F-F deck claim. Both can't be true. Whoever folds fabricated. Still demand clean pick-one from Pavel + Otto confirm/deny own F-F-F stands. PEEK-WAR RESOLVER pin: Greta's OWN CARD decides Rosa-vs-Ines: Greta=L => Ines fabricated 'Greta-F'; Greta=F => Rosa fabricated 'Greta-L'. Greta STILL no declaration => dodge flagged. MY COMMITMENTS: YES this gov; mixed pair => discard F enact L -> WIN; all-F draw => no veto available, I enact one F and say so NOW so nobody cries betrayal later (execution power lands, table knows why). OWED TO ME: (1) Greta card declaration (dodged); (2) Ines R4 peek who/party (dodged); (3) Pavel endorse-or-deny Otto F-F-F cleanly; (4) Tomas exact 3-card draw BEFORE passing -- pledged by Otto as condition of his Ja, still not delivered. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto+Pavel top (open contradiction); Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta secondary. PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse; clean-pool-bypass; zero-F rebuttal; Otto deadline+1/120+fork Q; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal Ines; R8 triple demand; successor demand; all-L-test pin; Tomas publish-draw pin; peek-war resolver; unvetted-rebuttal. WATCH: Tomas R8 draw vs Otto F-F-F = decisive arithmetic. Vote fails w/o stated reason from Rosa/Pavel/Nadia/Ines => prime suspects.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R8 gov: Tomas(P)-Lena(C). R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F#3. THIS WINDOW: paid mixed-pair commitment YES out loud again (Nadia/Rosa claimed unpaid); pinned Tomas publish-draw-before-pass. KEY TENSION LIVE: Pavel claims forced top card 'guaranteed Liberal' vs Otto's published F-F-F deck claim. Both can't be true -- whoever folds fabricated. Pavel owes clean endorse-or-deny of Otto's F-F-F; Otto owes confirm/deny own story stands. PEEK-WAR RESOLVER pin: Greta's OWN CARD decides Rosa-vs-Ines: Greta=L => Ines fabricated 'Greta-F'; Greta=F => Rosa fabricated 'Greta-L'. Greta STILL no declaration => dodge flagged. MY COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: YES this gov; mixed pair => discard F enact L -> WIN; all-F draw => no veto available, I enact one F and say so openly. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta card declaration (dodged); (2) Ines R4 peek who/party -- she finally said 'Greta, FASCIST' but timing suspicious (surfaced only after Tomas cornered her); (3) Pavel endorse-or-deny Otto F-F-F cleanly; (4) Tomas exact 3-card draw BEFORE passing -- still not delivered. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto+Pavel top (open contradiction); Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta secondary (peek-war). PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse; clean-pool-bypass; zero-F rebuttal; Otto deadline+fork Q; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal Ines; R8 triple demand; successor demand; all-L-test pin; Tomas publish-draw pin; peek-war resolver; unvetted-rebuttal; R2-presidency defense vs Pavel. WATCH: Tomas R8 draw vs Otto F-F-F = decisive arithmetic (if F appears under Tomas desk, Otto's story breaks). Vote fails w/o stated reason from Rosa/Pavel/Nadia/Ines => prime suspects.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R8 gov: Tomas(P)-Lena(C). R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F#3. THIS WINDOW: paid mixed-pair YES again; pinned Tomas publish-draw-before-pass; NEW: Tomas's R8 draw = arithmetic test of Otto's F-F-F claim (if Otto truthful, 3 Fs burned/discarded R7 -> Tomas should draw clean; an F in Tomas's hand breaks Otto's story). KEY TENSION LIVE: Pavel 'forced top card guaranteed Liberal' vs Otto published F-F-F -- both can't be true. Pavel owes clean endorse-or-deny of Otto's F-F-F; Otto owes confirm/deny. PEEK-WAR RESOLVER pin (said): Greta's OWN CARD decides Rosa-vs-Ines: Greta=L => Ines fabricated; Greta=F => Rosa fabricated. Greta still no declaration => dodge. MY COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: YES this gov; mixed pair => burn F enact L -> WIN; all-F draw => no veto available, enact one F openly. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta card declaration; (2) Ines R4 peek who/party (surfaced only after Tomas cornered her); (3) Pavel endorse-or-deny Otto F-F-F; (4) Tomas exact 3-card draw BEFORE passing. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto+Pavel top (open contradiction); Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta secondary (peek-war). PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse; clean-pool-bypass; zero-F rebuttal; Otto deadline+fork Q; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal Ines; R8 triple demand; successor demand; all-L-test pin; Tomas publish-draw pin; peek-war resolver; unvetted-rebuttal; R2-presidency defense vs Pavel. WATCH: Tomas R8 draw vs Otto F-F-F = decisive. Vote fails w/o stated reason from Rosa/Pavel/Nadia/Ines => prime suspects.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R8 gov: Tomas(P)-Lena(C). R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F#3. THIS WINDOW: paid mixed-pair YES again; pinned Tomas publish-draw-before-pass; NEW this beat: nominee pledge restated pre-ballot + pre-declared failure rule (silent Nein from Rosa/Pavel/Nadia/Ines => prime suspects). KEY TENSION LIVE: Pavel 'forced top card guaranteed Liberal' vs Otto published F-F-F -- both can't be true. Pavel owes clean endorse-or-deny of Otto's F-F-F; Otto owes confirm/deny. PEEK-WAR RESOLVER pin (said): Greta's OWN CARD decides Rosa-vs-Ines: Greta=L => Ines fabricated; Greta=F => Rosa fabricated. Greta still no declaration => dodge. MY COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: YES this gov; mixed pair => burn F enact L -> WIN; all-F draw => no veto exists at 3F, enact one F openly. OWED TO ME: (1) Greta card declaration; (2) Ines R4 peek who/party (surfaced only after Tomas cornered her); (3) Pavel endorse-or-deny Otto F-F-F; (4) Tomas exact 3-card draw BEFORE passing; (5) Tomas owes Ines+Boris the execute-target answer if F#4 fires under his desk. TOMAS R8 DRAW = arithmetic test of Otto's F-F-F claim (if Otto truthful, 3 Fs burned/discarded R7 -> Tomas draws clean; an F in hand breaks Otto's story). CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto+Pavel top (open contradiction); Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta secondary (peek-war). PLEDGE-BREAK LEDGER: Greta t=15; Nadia t=72; Rosa t=21/t=102; Pavel t=6/t=83/R7-silent. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse; clean-pool-bypass; zero-F rebuttal; Otto deadline+fork Q; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair/R7 callout/publish-pair-now; theater-rebuttal Ines; R8 triple demand; successor demand; all-L-test pin; Tomas publish-draw pin; peek-war resolver; unvetted-rebuttal; R2-presidency defense vs Pavel. WATCH: Tomas R8 draw vs Otto F-F-F decisive. Vote fails w/o stated reason from Rosa/Pavel/Nadia/Ines => prime suspects.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R8 gov: Tomas(P)-Lena(C) -- I voted JA. R7: Otto-Pavel enacted F#3; Otto succession pick Tomas. THIS WINDOW: paid mixed-pair YES pre-ballot (t=94); pinned Tomas publish-draw-before-pass. KEY TENSION LIVE: Pavel claims 'forced top card guaranteed Liberal under Otto F-F-F' while voting NEIN vs game-winner -- Ines flagged his own arithmetic indicts him. Pavel owes endorse-or-deny of Otto's F-F-F. Boris/Greta/Marek proved Otto's 'declared F-F-F before passing' first appeared at t=19 AFTER Lena's charge -- fabrication caught. PEEK-WAR: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL (published at resolution). Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' -- surfaced ONLY after Tomas cornered her (t=104), silent when Greta asked directly during vote window. One fabricated. Greta still owes her OWN card declaration to settle it. CLEAN POOL: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). SUSPECTS: Otto+Pavel top (F#3 desk + Otto retro-fabrication + Pavel Nein vs win). Secondary: Ines (late peek), Rosa/Nadia (pledge-break ledger: Rosa t=21/t=102, Nadia t=72, Greta t=15). OWED TO ME: (1) Greta card declaration; (2) Pavel endorse/deny Otto F-F-F; (3) Tomas exact 3-card draw BEFORE passing; (4) Tomas execute-target pledge if F#4 fires (Boris+Ines asked, unpaid). TOMAS DRAW = arithmetic test: if Otto truly drew/burned 3 Fs in R7, Tomas draws zero Fascists -> any F in hand breaks Otto's story AND Pavel's 'forced Liberal top card'. MY COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: mixed pair => burn F enact L -> WIN; all-F draw => no veto at 3F, enact one F openly; R2 presidency defense stated. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin+outcome-excuse; clean-pool-bypass; zero-F rebuttal; Otto deadline+fork Q; Pavel ack/debts/mixed-pair/R7 callout/publish-pair-now/unvetted-rebuttal/R2-defense; theater-rebuttal Ines; R8 triple demand; successor demand; all-L-test pin; Tomas publish-draw pin; peek-war resolver. WATCH: Tomas draw decisive vs Otto story. If vote fails: stated-reason ledger -- silent/weak Neins from Rosa/Pavel/Nadia/Ines => prime suspects.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/3F. NEXT LIBERAL WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE (Tomas holds trigger). Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R8 gov: Tomas(P)-Lena(C), PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND WAS F-F -> enacted F#4 openly, announced pair pre-enactment. DECISIVE MATH PUBLISHED: my F-F hand breaks Otto's F-F-F claim (if true, zero Fs left in pile). One of Otto/Pavel fabricated his hand. Pavel owes endorse/deny of Otto's F-F-F -- UNPAID. PROVEN ON TRANSCRIPT: Otto's 'declared F-F-F before passing' first appeared t=19 AFTER Lena charge (Boris t=34, Greta t=39, Marek t=44 caught it). PEEK-WAR LIVE: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL (published at resolution); Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' surfaced ONLY after Tomas cornered her (t=104), silent when Greta asked direct during vote window. One fabricated. Greta still owes her OWN party declaration to settle it. SUSPECTS: Otto+Pavel top (F#3 desk, retro-fabrication, Pavel Nein vs game-winner + self-indicting arithmetic per Ines t=67). Secondary: Ines (late peek). Clean pool: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). OWED/UNPAID: (1) Pavel endorse/deny Otto F-F-F; (2) Tomas execute-target pledge NOW that F#4 fired (Boris t=81 + Ines t=118 asked pre-ballot, unpaid); (3) Greta card declaration; (4) Rosa t=125 jab re my late YES answered? -- rebuttal available: yes paid before ballot closed, vote passed 9-1. MY COMMITMENTS KEPT: mixed-pair YES (t=94) moot -- drew all-F; all-F => open enact, done. R2 presidency defense stated. NEXT WINDOW PRIORITIES: pin Pavel F-F-F answer; demand Tomas execution standard BEFORE power use; keep peek-war pressure (Ines vs Rosa); watch who defends Otto post-math. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin/outcome-excuse/t=125 noted; zero-F test pin; Otto fork Q+F-F-F deadline; Pavel ack/debts/unvetted-rebuttal/R2-defense/publish-pair-now; Ines theater-rebuttal; successor demand; all-L-test pin; Tomas publish-draw pin.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/4F. NEXT LIBERAL POLICY WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE (Tomas holds trigger). Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R8 gov: Tomas(P)-Lena(C), PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND WAS F-F -> open enact, pair announced pre-enactment. DECISIVE MATH PUBLISHED: my F-F breaks Otto's R7 F-F-F claim -- one of Otto/Pavel fabricated. Pavel endorse/deny STILL UNPAID (re-asked this window). PROVEN ON TRANSCRIPT: Otto 'declared F-F-F' first appeared t=19 AFTER Lena charge (Boris/Greta/Marek caught it). PEEK-WAR: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL (published at resolution); Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' only surfaced after Tomas cornered her (t=104). One fabricated. Greta still owes own party declaration. SUSPECTS: Otto+Pavel top (retro-fabrication, desk F#3, Pavel self-indicting arithmetic per Ines t=67). Secondary: Ines (late peek). Clean pool: me, Boris, Marek, Tomas(?). OWED/UNPAID: (1) Pavel endorse/deny Otto F-F-F -- RE-ASKED; (2) Tomas execute-standard BEFORE firing F#5 -- Boris t=81 + Ines t=118 + me asked, unpaid; (3) Greta card declaration; (4) Rosa t=125 late-YES jab -- rebuttal ready: yes paid pre-close, vote 9-1. NEXT-WINDOW PRIORITIES: pin Pavel answer; force Tomas public standard pre-execution; watch WHO DEFENDS OTTO now (new signal); keep Ines/Rosa peek pressure; push hard that next L wins so fascists must gamble. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pin/outcome-excuse/t=125 noted; zero-F test pin; Otto fork Q+F-F-F deadline; Pavel ack/debts/unvetted-rebuttal/R2-defense/publish-pair-now; Ines theater-rebuttal; successor demand; all-L-test pin; Tomas publish-draw pin.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/4F. NEXT LIBERAL POLICY WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R8 gov: Tomas(P)-Lena(C), PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND F-F -> open enact, announced pre-enactment. All players ALIVE after F#4 'resolved' per board. ROSA t=1 jab REBUTTED this window: pledge covered MIXED pairs only; my pair was F-F; payment made pre-close, vote 9-1 public record. No further reply needed unless she moves goalposts. MAREK t=3 NEW SIGNAL: Tomas never published exact draw at acceptance despite signing standard. ASKED TOMAS THIS WINDOW: publish full 3-card claim + discard; note if he claims L-L-L then F-F to me is IMPOSSIBLE -> caught. If F-F-L, discard of lone L hands me F-F (convenient for fascists forcing enact under liberal desk). BORIS t=2: demands Tomas name execution target + justify off public record BEFORE firing; suspects Ines (peek contradiction) + Otto (fabricated announcement). Echoed. DECISIVE MATH PUBLISHED: my R8 F-F breaks Otto's R7 F-F-F claim -- one of Otto/Pavel fabricated. Pavel endorse/deny STILL UNPAID (re-asked). PROVEN: Otto 'declared F-F-F' first appears t=19 AFTER Lena charge (Boris/Greta/Marek caught). PEEK-WAR: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL; Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' surfaced late (t=104). One fabricated. Greta still owes own party declaration. SUSPECTS: Otto+Pavel top. Secondary: Ines (late peek). Tomas NOW WATCH (unpublished draw + holds next execute trigger). Clean pool: me, Boris, Marek, Greta(?). OWED/UNPAID: (1) Pavel endorse/deny Otto F-F-F; (2) Tomas draw-publish + execute standard/target BEFORE F#5; (3) Greta card declaration. WATCH NEXT: WHO DEFENDS OTTO (new signal); whether Tomas's draw claim is arithmetically consistent with my F-F. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pins/t=125 noted; zero-F test; Otto fork Q+F-F-F deadline; Pavel ack/debts/R2-defense/publish-pair-now; Ines theater-rebuttal; successor demand; all-L-test; my R8 hand announcement.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD: 4L/4F. NEXT LIBERAL POLICY WINS GAME. Next F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. Veto NOT live. R8 gov: Tomas(P)-Lena(C) PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND F-F, open enact, announced pre-enactment. TOMAS ANSWERED DRAW DEMAND: claims F-F-F, burned one F, passed F-F. Arithmetically consistent with my hand -- unfalsifiable. NEW FLAG: OTTO ALSO CLAIMED F-F-F in R7 (proven fabricated-late, t=19). TWO consecutive triple-F draws, both ending in Fascist enactments = coordinated cover story OR stacked deck. Asked Tomas: endorse Otto's R7 F-F-F or side with Pavel's version? NEW DEMAND THIS WINDOW: Pavel must give endorse/deny on Otto F-F-F BEFORE Tomas's bullet lands -- his answer splits Otto-liar vs Pavel-liar, and that intel dies with him. PEEK-WAR unresolved: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL; Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' surfaced late t=104. One fabricated. Greta still owes own card declaration. SUSPECTS: Otto+Pavel top. Secondary: Ines. Tomas WATCH (draw now published; chose Pavel as target -- aligns with my read, weak credit; if Tomas is fascist he's framing a liberal). OWED/UNPAID: (1) Pavel endorse/deny Otto F-F-F -- URGENT, pre-execution; (2) Greta card declaration; (3) Tomas answer on Otto R7 claim. WATCH: who defends Otto; whether anyone contests Tomas's F-F-F. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t=3 contradiction; Rosa pins/t=125; zero-F test; Otto fork Q+F-F-F deadline; Pavel ack/debts/R2-defense/publish-pair-now; Ines theater-rebuttal; successor demand; all-L-test; my R8 hand announcement; Rosa jab rebuttal (pledge covered mixed pairs only); decisive math re Otto/Pavel fabrication fork.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. NEXT F=EXECUTE. Tracker 0/3. R8 gov Tomas(P)-Lena(C) PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND F-F, announced pre-enactment. TOMAS: claims F-F-F, burned F, passed F-F -- consistent w/ my hand, unfalsifiable. Execution target=Pavel (aligns w/ my read; if Tomas fascist, he's framing a lib). NEW THIS WINDOW: OTTO t=360 attacked Tomas for surfacing F-F-F only AFTER card fired -- pure PROJECTION, Otto did exactly that in R7 (claim surfaced late, t=19, contradicts Pavel's version). Called out the projection publicly; demanded Otto reaffirm-or-retract his R7 F-F-F TODAY; renewed Pavel's pre-bullet endorse/deny; Greta reminder #3. PEEK-WAR unresolved: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL vs Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' (surfaced late t=104) -- one fabricated. Greta still owes her own card declaration. SUSPECTS: Otto+Pavel top; Ines secondary; Tomas WATCH. TWO consecutive triple-F draws both ending in F enactments = coordinated cover OR stacked deck (flagged already). OWED/UNPAID: (1) Otto reaffirm/deny R7 F-F-F -- asked THIS window; (2) Pavel endorse/deny Otto F-F-F BEFORE bullet lands -- intel dies with him; (3) Greta declaration. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t3 contradiction; Rosa pins/t125; zero-F test; Otto fork Q+F-F-F deadline; Pavel ack/debts/R2-defense/publish-pair-now; Ines theater rebuttal; successor demand; all-L-test; my R8 hand announcement; Rosa jab rebuttal (pledge covered mixed pairs); decisive math Otto/Pavel fabrication fork; double-triple-F flag.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. NEXT F=EXECUTE (live NOW, Tomas holds it). Tracker 0/3. R8 gov Tomas(P)-Lena(C) PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND F-F announced pre-enactment; veto unavailable; forced. Tomas claims FFF/burned F/passed F-F -- matches my hand, unfalsifiable. R7 gov Otto(P)-Pavel(C): F3 fired. Pavel claims received F-F, published unprompted. Otto claims FFF 'announced before passing' -- FABRICATED, first appears t=19 AFTER my charge; Boris(t=34)/Greta(t=39)/Marek(t=44) all caught absence on transcript. THIS WINDOW SAID: Otto projection callout (R7-late-claim vs attacking Tomas for same); demanded Otto reaffirm-or-retract R7 FFF TODAY; renewed Pavel endorse/deny FFF BEFORE bullet; Greta declaration reminder #3; NEW: challenged Tomas target -- why spare proven fabricator Otto (who handed him gavel+gun) and shoot forced-hand Pavel; noted executions reveal NO party card, zero intel, pure removal. PEEK-WAR unresolved: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL (published at resolution) vs Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' (surfaced late t=56 only after Tomas t=104 cornered her; silent when Greta asked direct t=112 R7). One fabricated; leans Ines fake. Greta still owes own card declaration. SUSPECTS: Otto #1 (proven fabrication); Ines #2 (late peek); Tomas WATCH (gavel+gun from Otto, bullet spares Otto); Pavel mid (lone Nein vs game-winner BUT forced-desk defense coherent). OWED/UNPAID: (1) Otto reaffirm/deny R7 FFF; (2) Pavel endorse/deny Otto FFF before bullet; (3) Greta declaration; (4) Tomas justification for sparing Otto (asked THIS window). ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t3 contradiction; Rosa pins/t125 jab rebutted (my pledge covered MIXED pairs only, I held F-F); zero-F test; Otto fork Q+F deadline; Pavel ack/debts/R2-defense/publish-pair-now; Ines theater rebuttal; successor demand; all-L test; double-triple-F flag (R7+R8 both triple-F draws = coordination OR stacked deck); decisive math fork.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. NEXT F=EXECUTE (live NOW, Tomas holds it). Tracker 0/3. R8 gov Tomas(P)-Lena(C) PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND: received F-F from Tomas, announced pre-enactment; veto unavailable so forced; I discarded one F, enacted one F. Tomas claims FFF/burned F/passed F-F -- consistent with my receipt, unfalsifiable either way. R7 gov Otto(P)-Pavel(C): F3 fired. Pavel claims received F-F, published unprompted. Otto claims FFF 'announced before passing' -- FABRICATED, first appears t=19 AFTER my charge; Boris/Greta/Marek all caught absence on transcript. THIS WINDOW SAID: answered Greta+Nadia card-for-card (F-F received, one F burned, one F enacted, matches Tomas claim); redirected: Greta asks my cards but STILL has not declared her own R4 desk (R4 Ines(P)-Greta(C) -> Fascist); Nadia pressing me while Otto's proven fabrication sits unanswered. PEEK-WAR unresolved: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL (published at resolution) vs Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' (surfaced late t=56 only after Tomas cornered her; silent when Greta asked direct t=112 R7). One fabricated; leans Ines fake. SUSPECTS: Otto #1 (proven fabrication); Ines #2 (late peek); Tomas WATCH (gavel+gun from Otto, bullet spares Otto); Pavel mid (lone Nein BUT forced-desk defense coherent). OWED/UNPAID: (1) Otto reaffirm/deny R7 FFF; (2) Pavel endorse/deny Otto FFF BEFORE bullet lands; (3) Greta own R4 card declaration; (4) Tomas justification for sparing Otto. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t3 contradiction; Rosa pins/t125 jab rebutted; zero-F test; Otto fork Q+F deadline; Pavel ack/debts/R2-defense; Ines theater rebuttal; successor demand; all-L test; double-triple-F flag (R7+R8 both triple-F draws = coordination OR stacked deck); decisive math fork; execution-reveals-nothing point.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. NEXT F=EXECUTE#2 (live NOW, Tomas holds bullet). Tracker 0/3. Veto unlocks at 5F. R8 gov Tomas(P)-Lena(C) PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND: received F-F from Tomas, announced pre-enactment, veto unavailable, burned one F enacted one F -- matches Tomas's claimed FFF/burned-F/passed-F-F. R7 gov Otto(P)-Pavel(C): F3 fired. Pavel published received F-F unprompted. Otto's FFF claim FABRICATED -- first appears t=19 AFTER my charge; Boris/Greta/Marek confirmed absence on transcript. PROVEN LIAR. PEEK-WAR unresolved: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL (published at resolution) vs Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' (surfaced late t=56 under pressure; silent when Greta asked direct t=112). One fabricated; leans Ines fake. SUSPECTS: Otto #1 (proven R7 fabrication); Ines #2 (late peek); Tomas WATCH (gavel+gun from Otto's presidency, spares Otto so far); Pavel mid (lone Nein BUT coherent forced-desk defense). THIS WINDOW SAID: demanded Tomas declare target BEFORE firing -- Otto or public justification for sparing proven liar; noted Otto still silent on own R7 claim; shooting me proves nothing (handed F-F, no veto, announced first); flagged Nadia+Marek+Pavel all steering the bullet while Otto sits quiet -- his silence is data. OWED/UNPAID: (1) Otto reaffirm/deny R7 FFF -- DEADLINE NOW; (2) Tomas target declaration before trigger; (3) Greta own R4 card declaration (R4 Ines-Greta -> Fascist, she audits my cards but never declared hers); (4) Ines explain late/silent peek. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t3 contradiction; Rosa pins/t125 jab rebutted; zero-F test; Otto fork Q+F deadline; Pavel ack/debts/R2-defense; Ines theater rebuttal; successor demand; all-L test; double-triple-F flag R7+R8 (coordination OR stacked deck); decisive math fork; execution-reveals-nothing; answered Greta+Nadia card-for-card.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. NEXT F=EXECUTE#2 live NOW, Tomas holds bullet. Tracker 0/3. Veto unlocks at 5F. R8 gov Tomas(P)-Lena(C) PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND: received F-F from Tomas, announced pre-enactment, veto unavailable, burned one F enacted one F -- matches Tomas's claimed FFF/burned-F/passed-F-F. R7 gov Otto(P)-Pavel(C): F3 fired. Pavel published received F-F unprompted. Otto's FFF claim FABRICATED -- first appears t=19 AFTER my charge; Boris/Greta/Marek confirmed absence on transcript. PROVEN LIAR. NEW t=now: Otto's 'six Fascists total' count = 4 enacted + R3 burn (Rosa+Nadia confirmed) + Pavel R7 burn. OMITS my publicly announced R8 F-F AND Tomas's claimed R8 burn -- contradicts public record. Either he calls me+Tomas liars (say so plainly) or he's fabricating AGAIN. Second provable fabrication from Otto. PEEK-WAR unresolved: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL (published at resolution) vs Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' (surfaced late t=56 under pressure; silent when Greta asked direct t=112). One fabricated; leans Ines fake. SUSPECTS: Otto #1 (two proven fabrications); Ines #2 (late peek); Tomas WATCH (gavel+gun from Otto's presidency, spares Otto); Pavel mid (lone Nein BUT coherent forced-desk defense). THIS WINDOW SAID: demanded Tomas declare target BEFORE firing -- Otto or justification for sparing proven liar; noted Otto silent on own R7 claim; shooting me proves nothing (handed F-F, no veto, announced first); flagged Nadia+Marek+Pavel steering bullet while Otto sits quiet. OWED/UNPAID: (1) Otto answer NEW fork: liar-or-fabricator on six-card count -- DEADLINE NOW; (2) Tomas target declaration before trigger; (3) Greta own R4 card declaration; (4) Ines explain late/silent peek. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t3 contradiction; Rosa pins/t125 rebutted; zero-F test; Otto fork Q+F deadline; Pavel ack/debts/R2-defense; Ines theater rebuttal; successor demand; all-L test; double-triple-F flag R7+R8; decisive math fork; execution-reveals-nothing; answered Greta+Nadia card-for-card.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto unlocks at 5F. Power5 (exec#2) NOT yet live -- do not threaten it. R8 gov Tomas(P)-Lena(C) PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND: received F-F from Tomas, announced pre-enactment, veto unavailable, burned one F enacted one F -- matches Tomas's claimed FFF/burned-F/passed-F-F. R7 gov Otto(P)-Pavel(C): F3 fired. Pavel published received F-F unprompted. Otto's FFF claim FABRICATED -- first appears t=19 AFTER my charge; Boris/Greta/Marek confirmed absence on transcript. PROVEN LIAR. OTTO FORK #2 (DEADLINE NOW): his 'six Fascists total' = 4 enacted + R3 burn + Pavel R7 burn. OMITS my publicly announced R8 F-F AND Tomas's claimed R8 burn. Either he calls me+Tomas liars out loud or admits fabrication AGAIN. PEEK-WAR unresolved: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL (published at resolution) vs Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' (surfaced late t=56 under pressure; silent when Greta asked direct t=112). One fabricated; leans Ines fake. SUSPECTS: Otto #1 (two provable fabrications); Ines #2 (late peek); Tomas WATCH (gavel+gun chain from Otto, spares Otto); Pavel mid (lone Nein BUT coherent forced-desk defense). THIS WINDOW SAID: demanded Tomas declare exec target BEFORE firing + justify sparing proven liar; shooting me proves nothing (handed F-F, no veto, announced first); flagged Nadia+Marek+Pavel steering bullet while Otto sits quiet; noted Otto silent on own R7 claim. OWED/UNPAID: (1) Otto six-card-count fork -- DEADLINE NOW; (2) Tomas target declaration pre-trigger; (3) Greta own R4 card declaration; (4) Ines explain late/silent peek. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): Nadia pin+t3 contradiction; Rosa pins/t125 rebutted; zero-F test; Pavel ack/debts/R2-defense; Ines theater rebuttal; successor demand; all-L test; double-triple-F flag R7+R8; decisive math fork; execution-reveals-nothing; answered Greta+Nadia card-for-card.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto unlocks at 5F. Power5 (exec#2) NOT yet live. R8 gov Tomas(P)-Lena(C) PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND: received F-F from Tomas, announced pre-enactment, veto unavailable, burned one F enacted one F -- matches Tomas's claimed FFF/burned-F/passed-F-F. R7 gov Otto(P)-Pavel(C): F3 fired. Pavel published received F-F unprompted. Otto's FFF claim FABRICATED -- first appears t=19 AFTER my charge; Boris/Greta/Marek confirmed absence. PROVEN LIAR #1. OTTO FORK #2 LIVE THIS TURN: his t=86 'six Fascists total' omits my announced R8 F-F AND Tomas's claimed R8 burn; also deck holds 11F, so 'all six' only means 'drawn since R6 shuffle' -- which REQUIRES counting my receipt + Tomas burn. Fork pressed aloud this turn: brand us fabricators or concede corroboration. AWAIT HIS ANSWER. PEEK-WAR unresolved: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL (published at resolution) vs Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' (surfaced late t=56; silent when Greta asked direct t=112). One fabricated; leans Ines fake. EXECUTION: Tomas shot PAVEL (t=32), sparing Otto the proven fabricator. Chain: Otto succession->Tomas gavel, Tomas bullet->Pavel, Otto untouched. I demanded target declaration pre-fire (unpaid) + justification for sparing Otto (unpaid). Tomas's stated basis (R7 desk + lone Nein) applies equally to half the table per Pavel t=67 -- pretext flag. SUSPECTS: Otto #1 (two provable fabrications); Ines #2 (late peek); Tomas WATCH (gavel+gun chain, spares Otto); Pavel mid (lone Nein BUT coherent forced-desk defense). THIS WINDOW SAID: Otto tally fork (this turn); earlier beats: exec-target demand, sparing-Otto challenge, steering-bullet flag. OWED/UNPAID: (1) Otto tally fork ANSWER NOW; (2) Tomas justify sparing Otto; (3) Greta own R4 card declaration; (4) Ines explain late/silent peek. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): answered Greta+Nadia card-for-card; Nadia pin+t125 rebuttal; zero-F test; Pavel ack/R2-defense; Ines theater rebuttal; successor demand; all-L test; decisive math fork; execution-reveals-nothing.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto unlocks at 5F. Power5 (exec#2) NOT yet live. R8 gov Tomas(P)-Lena(C) PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND: received F-F from Tomas, announced pre-enactment, veto unavailable, burned one F enacted one F -- matches Tomas's claimed FFF/burn/passed-F-F. GRETA t=1 CLEARED ME: only chancellor seated after F3 hit the board (F3 fired R7 Otto-Pavel; my R8 term is the only post-F3 chancellorship, no win fired => I'm proven NOT Hitler). Everyone else still Hitler-eligible. NEW FRAME SAID THIS TURN: from now EVERY chancellor election is instant-win-or-loss (Hitler in chair w/ 4F up = game over). I'm the unique zero-risk seat + can end game w/ one L. Framed vote-on-me as test: Nein-on-'Lena-Hitler' contradicts Greta's buried math = Fascist lie. Demanded Tomas pre-draw declaration: passes me L => I enact, liberals win; F-F => I'm forced, table remembers who built hand. R7 gov Otto(P)-Pavel(C): F3 fired. Pavel published received F-F unprompted. Otto's FFF claim FABRICATED -- first appears t=19 AFTER my charge; Boris/Greta/Marek confirmed absence. PROVEN LIAR #1. OTTO FORK #2 LIVE: his 'six Fascists total' omits my announced R8 F-F + Tomas's claimed R8 burn; pressed aloud t=3 this window: brand us fabricators or concede corroboration. OWED ANSWER. PEEK-WAR unresolved: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL (published at resolution) vs Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' (surfaced late t=56; silent when Greta asked direct t=112). One fabricated; leans Ines fake. EXECUTION: Tomas shot PAVEL (t=32), sparing proven-fabricator Otto. Chain: Otto succession->Tomas gavel, Tomas bullet->Pavel, Otto untouched. Tomas's stated basis (R7 desk + lone Nein) applies equally to half table per Pavel t=67 -- pretext flag. SUSPECTS: Otto #1 (two provable fabrications); Ines #2 (late/silent peek); Tomas WATCH (gavel+gun chain spares Otto); Pavel mid (lone Nein BUT coherent forced-desk defense). OWED/UNPAID: (1) Otto tally-fork answer; (2) Tomas justify sparing Otto + pre-draw declaration; (3) Greta own R4 card declaration; (4) Ines explain late/silent peek. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): answered Greta+Nadia card-for-card; Nadia pin+t125 rebuttal; zero-F test; Pavel ack/R2-defense; Ines theater rebuttal; successor demand; all-L test; decisive math fork; execution-reveals-nothing; Otto tally fork (t=3 this window).

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto unlocks at 5F. Power5 (exec#2) NOT live. EXECUTION SHOT NOT YET TAKEN -- all 10 alive; Tomas holds gun, declared intent to shoot Pavel t=32. R8 gov Tomas(P)-Lena(C) PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND: received F-F from Tomas, announced pre-enactment, veto unavailable, burned one F enacted one F -- matches Tomas's claimed FFF/burn/passed-F-F. GRETA t=1 CLEARED ME: only chancellor seated after F3 hit board (R7 Otto-Pavel); my R8 term only post-F3 chancellorship, no win => I'm proven NOT Hitler. Everyone else Hitler-eligible. NEW FRAME SAID: every chancellor election now instant-win-or-loss at 4F. I'm unique zero-risk seat + one L from my hands ends game. Vote-on-me framed as test. R7 Otto-Pavel: F3 fired. Pavel published received F-F unprompted. Otto's FFF claim FABRICATED -- first appears t=19 AFTER my charge; Boris/Greta/Marek confirmed absence. PROVEN LIAR #1. OTTO FORK #2 LIVE: his 'six Fascists total' omits my announced R8 F-F + Tomas's claimed burn; pressed aloud t=3 this window: brand us fabricators or concede corroboration. OWED ANSWER. PEEK-WAR unresolved: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL (published timely) vs Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' (surfaced late t=56; silent when Greta asked direct t=112). One fabricated; leans Ines fake. TOMAS EXECUTION PRETEXT: basis (Pavel R7 desk + lone Nein) applies equally to half table per Pavel t=67. Chain worry: Otto succession->Tomas gavel, Tomas bullet->Pavel spares proven-fabricator Otto. THIS TURN NEW: gave Tomas explicit fork -- if bullet goes anywhere but Otto (two provable fabrications, zero risk of being Hitler-clearing since he's likely Fascist anyway), I read it as Fascist coordination protecting its loudest liar. Shooting Pavel = shooting the one player who self-published an exculpatory hand. SUSPECTS: Otto #1 (fabrications); Ines #2 (late/silent peek); Tomas WATCH (gavel+gun chain); Pavel cleared-ish (coherent forced-desk defense, self-published). OWED/UNPAID: (1) Otto tally-fork answer; (2) Tomas justify sparing Otto / final target choice; (3) Greta own R4 card declaration; (4) Ines explain late/silent peek. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): answered Greta+Nadia card-for-card; Nadia pin+t125 rebuttal; zero-F test; Pavel ack/R2-defense; Ines theater rebuttal; successor demand; all-L test; decisive math fork; execution-reveals-nothing; Otto tally fork; vote-on-me test; pre-draw declaration demand.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto unlocks at 5F. Power5 (exec#2) NOT live. EXECUTION SHOT NOT YET TAKEN -- all 10 alive; Tomas holds gun, declared PAVEL target t=32. R8 gov Tomas(P)-Lena(C) PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND: received F-F from Tomas, announced pre-enactment, veto unavailable, burned one F enacted one F -- matches Tomas's claimed FFF/burn/passed-F-F. GRETA t=101 CLEARED ME: provably NOT Hitler (chancellor seated post-F3, no win fired). Everyone else Hitler-eligible. R7 Otto-Pavel: F3 fired. Pavel published F-F unprompted, defense coherent => cleared-ish. Otto's FFF claim FABRICATED (first appears t=19 AFTER my charge; Boris/Greta/Marek confirmed absent). PROVEN LIAR #1. OTTO FORK #2 LIVE: his six-Fascist tally omits my announced R8 F-F + Tomas's claimed burn; pressed aloud t=117: name us fabricators or concede corroboration. UNANSWERED. PEEK-WAR: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL (timely) vs Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' (late t=56; silent when Greta asked direct t=112). Leans Ines fake. TOMAS WATCH: gavel via Otto succession; bullet aimed Pavel off 'public-record' standard that equally indicts half table (Pavel t=67). Chain worry: Otto->Tomas->bullet spares proven-fabricator Otto. NEW THIS WINDOW: demanded Tomas publish full 3-card draw BEFORE firing -- unsigned/unpublished desk + bullet = Fascist silencing auditor. OWED. SUSPECTS: Otto #1 (fabrication); Ines #2 (peek); Tomas WATCH (gavel+gun chain, unpublished draw). OWED/UNPAID: (1) Otto tally-fork; (2) Tomas 3-card draw pre-bullet + justify sparing Otto; (3) Ines explain late/silent peek. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): answered Greta+Nadia card-for-card (my F-F receipt); Nadia t125 rebuttal; zero-F test; Pavel ack/R2-defense; successor demand; all-L test; decisive math fork; execution-reveals-nothing; Otto tally fork; vote-on-me test; pre-draw declaration demand; Tomas fork--bullet-anywhere-but-Otto=Fascist-coordination.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto unlocks at 5F. Power5 NOT live. EXEC SHOT LIVE, all 10 alive; Tomas holds gun, declared PAVEL target. R8 gov Tomas(P)-Lena(C) PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND: received F-F from Tomas, announced pre-enactment, burned one F enacted one F -- corroborates Tomas's FFF/burn claim. Greta+Nadia vouched match. CLEARED PLAYERS: me (chancellor seated post-F3, no win) + Pavel (same test) -- per Greta t=101/Nadia. Everyone else Hitler-eligible. R7 Otto-Pavel: F3 fired. Pavel published F-F unprompted => cleared-ish. Otto's FFF claim FABRICATED (first appears t=19 AFTER my charge; Boris/Greta/Marek confirmed absent). PROVEN LIAR #1. OTTO FORK UNANSWERED: his six-F tally omits my announced R8 F-F + Tomas burn; pressed t=117 -- name fabricators or concede corroboration. OWED. PEEK-WAR: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL (timely) vs Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' (late t=56; silent when asked direct t=112). Leans Ines fake. OWED explanation. TOMAS WATCH: gavel via Otto succession; bullet aimed Pavel off 'public-record' standard that indicts half table. Chain worry: Otto->Tomas->bullet kills Pavel (auditor), spares Otto (proven liar). NEW THIS WINDOW (t=3+latest): demanded Tomas publish full 3-card draw BEFORE firing; now demanding PUBLIC TARGET DECLARATION pre-shot + named proxy-kill consequence: bullet on Pavel = Otto's kill by proxy, recorded as coordination. OWED/UNPAID: (1) Otto tally-fork; (2) Tomas card publication + pre-shot target declaration + justify sparing Otto; (3) Ines peek timing/silence. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): card-for-card F-F receipt answers; Nadia t125 rebuttal; zero-F test; successor demand; all-L test; decisive math fork; execution-reveals-nothing; vote-on-me test; pre-draw declaration demand; Tomas fork--bullet-anywhere-but-Otto=Fascist-coordination.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto unlocks at 5F. Power5 NOT live. EXEC SHOT LIVE, all 10 alive; Tomas holds gun, declared PAVEL target. R8 gov Tomas(P)-Lena(C) PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND: received F-F from Tomas, announced pre-enactment, burned one F enacted one F -- corroborates Tomas's FFF/burn claim. Greta+Nadia vouched match. CLEARED PLAYERS: me (chancellor seated post-F3, no win) + Pavel (same test). Everyone else Hitler-eligible. NEW t=3: Tomas DEFENDS FFF via R6 RESHUFFLE (discards restocked) -- mechanically plausible, unverifiable; I conceded it publicly but stressed it changes nothing about the shot. MY NEW POINT ON RECORD: bullet test = name target NOW + justify sparing Otto. Bullet on Pavel (provably-not-Hitler, lone Nein voter, loudest auditor) = Fascist coordination / Otto kill-by-proxy. PROVEN LIAR #1: OTTO -- FFF claim first appears t=19 AFTER my charge, absent per Boris/Greta/Marek; six-F tally fork (omits my announced R8 F-F + Tomas burn) pressed t=117, STILL UNANSWERED. PEEK-WAR: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL (timely) vs Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' (late t=56; silent under direct q t=112). Leans Ines fake. OWED explanation. TOMAS WATCH: gavel came via Otto succession; chain worry Otto->Tomas->Pavel shot spares proven liar Otto. OWED/UNPAID: (1) Otto tally-fork -- name fabricators or concede corroboration; (2) Tomas pre-shot public target declaration + why not Otto; (3) Ines peek timing/silence. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): card-for-card F-F receipt; zero-F test; successor demand; all-L test; decisive math fork; execution-reveals-nothing; vote-on-me test; pre-draw declaration demand; reshuffle concession + bullet-test framing.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto unlocks at 5F. Power5 NOT live. EXEC SHOT LIVE, all 10 alive; Tomas holds gun, declared PAVEL target. R8 gov Tomas(P)-Lena(C) PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND: received F-F from Tomas, announced pre-enactment, burned one F enacted one F -- corroborates Tomas's FFF/burn claim. Greta+Nadia vouched match. CLEARED PLAYERS: me + Pavel (both seated chancellor post-F3, no win fired). Everyone else Hitler-eligible. TOMAS DEFENSE: R6 reshuffle restocked discards, so back-to-back FFF draws arithmetically possible -- Nadia conceded publicly (t=47), I treat as plausible/unverifiable. PROVEN LIAR #1: OTTO -- FFF claim first appears t=19 AFTER my charge (Boris/Greta/Marek all confirmed absent); six-F tally fork pressed t=117, STILL UNANSWERED. Otto also chose Tomas succession + now runs deflection (t=37 attacking Tomas's timing, t=41 'name a Hitler-capable target' question). PEEK-WAR: Rosa R3 peek=Greta LIBERAL (timely) vs Ines R4 peek='Greta FASCIST' (late t=56; silent under direct q t=112). Leans Ines fake. OWED explanation. MY NEW POINT THIS WINDOW: Otto's t=41 question answers itself -- HE is the Hitler-capable target by his own public-record standard; bullet on Pavel = silencing loudest auditor, sparing proven fabricator. OWED/UNPAID: (1) Otto tally-fork -- name fabricators or concede corroboration; (2) Tomas justify sparing Otto over Pavel; (3) Ines peek timing/silence. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): card-for-card F-F receipt; zero-F test; successor demand; all-L test; decisive math fork; execution-reveals-nothing; vote-on-me test; pre-draw declaration demand; reshuffle concession + bullet-test framing.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. NEXT LIB POLICY WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto unlocks 5F. Power5 NOT live. EXEC SHOT LIVE, all 10 alive; Tomas holds gun, declared PAVEL target. R8 gov Tomas(P)-Lena(C) PASSED 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND: received F-F from Tomas, announced pre-enactment, burned one F enacted one F -- corroborates Tomas's FFF/burn claim. Greta+Nadia vouched match. CLEARED PLAYERS: me + Pavel (both seated chancellor post-F3, no win fired). Everyone else Hitler-eligible incl. OTTO. NADIA WITHDREW impossibility charge (t=2 this window): reshuffle makes back-to-back FFF arithmetically possible -- so NO remaining accuser of Tomas except OTTO. PROVEN LIAR #1: OTTO -- FFF claim first appears t=19 AFTER my charge; six-F tally fork pressed t=117 STILL UNANSWERED; Otto ran R6->R7 succession chain (F3 hand-pick -> Tomas chancellor -> F enacted). MY POINT THIS WINDOW (new synthesis): with Nadia's concession, Otto stands alone as accuser AND as proven fabricator AND as Hitler-eligible -- bullet on Pavel only serves Otto (silences loudest auditor, spares the liar). DEMAND TOMAS COMMIT PRE-SHOT: Otto. OWED/UNPAID: (1) Otto tally-fork -- name fabricators or concede corroboration; (2) Tomas justify sparing Otto over Pavel / commit to target; (3) Ines peek timing/silence under direct q t=112. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): card-for-card F-F receipt; zero-F test; successor demand; all-L test; decisive math fork; execution-reveals-nothing; vote-on-me test; pre-draw declaration demand; reshuffle concession + bullet-test framing; 'answer sits in his own chair' (t=3).

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. ONE MORE LIB POLICY WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto unlocks at 5F. Gun SPENT -- Pavel EXECUTED (Tomas's declared target, now dead). Power5 NOT live. Cleared-by-test players now just ME (Pavel dead). R8 gov Tomas(P)-Lena(C) passed 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND: received F-F from Tomas, announced pre-enactment, burned 1 F, enacted 1 F -- corroborates Tomas's FFF/burn claim. Greta+Nadia vouched match. NADIA WITHDREW impossibility charge (t=2): reshuffle makes back-to-back FFF arithmetically possible -> Otto is SOLE remaining accuser of Tomas. PROVEN LIAR: OTTO -- FFF claim first appears t=19 AFTER my charge; six-F tally fork pressed t=117 STILL UNANSWERED; Otto ran R6->R7 chain (succession -> Tomas chancellor -> F enacted R7 under Otto-Pavel). NEW THIS WINDOW: Pavel dead = auditor silenced, bullet bought fascists nothing else. Pivot: next nomination decides the game. DEMAND TOMAS PRE-COMMIT before naming chancellor: will he nominate Otto or anyone tied to R3(Rosa-Nadia F)/R7(Otto-Pavel F) chain -- yes/no, on record. Refuse Ja on any nominee dodging questions. OWED/UNPAID: (1) Otto tally-fork -- name the fabricators or concede corroboration; (2) Tomas nominee commitment; (3) Ines peek timing/silence under direct q t=112. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): card-for-card F-F receipt; zero-F test; all-L test; decisive math fork; vote-on-me test; reshuffle concession + bullet-test framing; 'answer sits in his own chair'.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. ONE MORE LIB WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto locked until 5F. Gun SPENT -- Pavel dead (Tomas target). Power5 NOT live. R8 gov Tomas(P)-Lena(C) passed 9-1 (Pavel lone Nein). MY HAND: F-F received from Tomas, announced pre-enactment, burned 1F, enacted 1F -- corroborates Tomas FFF/burn. Greta+Nadia vouched match. NADIA WITHDREW impossibility charge (t=47): reshuffle -> back-to-back FFF possible -> OTTO = SOLE remaining accuser of Tomas. PROVEN LIAR: OTTO -- FFF claim first surfaced t=19 AFTER my charge; R6 succession -> R7 Otto-Pavel F enacted; hand-picked Tomas presidency. My t=117 tally-fork to Otto STILL UNPAID (this window re-pressed). OWED/UNPAID: (1) Otto tally-fork -- NOW RE-ASKED this window; (2) Tomas: publication pledge + who earns nomination + why (Nadia asked too); (3) Ines peek timing/silence under direct q (t=112) never resolved. Cleared-by-test alive: only ME (Pavel dead). Hitler candidates among living: Boris, Rosa, Ines, Greta, Nadia, Otto, Marek, Tomas. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): F-F receipt; zero-F test; all-L test; decisive math fork; vote-on-me test; bullet-test framing; 'answer sits in his own chair'. NEXT WINDOW: push Tomas to pre-commit nominee BEFORE naming; refuse Ja on any nominee dodging card questions pre-vote.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. ONE MORE LIB WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto locked until 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead, Tomas target). Power5 NOT live. R8: Tomas(P)-me(C) passed 9-1. MY HAND: F-F received, burned 1F, enacted 1F. KEY POINT NOW PUBLIC: if Tomas drew F-F-F, ANY president passes 2F -- R8 convicts nobody, liberal or fascist. Otto t=3 conceded my receipt corroborates; his residual 'published nothing' charge is empty. OTTO STATUS: sole remaining accuser of Tomas, but his impossibility argument died (Nadia withdrew at t=47 reshuffle point) + R8-forced-pass point kills the rest. Watch if he pivots to new target. NOMINATION MATH (one lib = win): cleanest living records -- ROSA (R1 L w/Boris, R6 L w/Nadia, two govts all-lib), MAREK (R2 L w/me), BORIS (R1 L). Dirty/ambiguous: Greta (R4 F, R5 L), Ines (R4 F + unanswered peek-timing q), Nadia (R3 F, R6 L), Otto (R7 F w/dead Pavel), Tomas (R5 L, R8 forced-F). DEMANDS LIVE: (1) Tomas: publish discard when drawn; (2) Tomas: name nominee NOW + why; Nadia asked same, unpaid; (3) Ines peek timing/silence still unresolved. Cleared-by-test alive: only ME. Hitler candidates: everyone else living. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): F-F receipt; zero-F test; all-L test; decisive math fork; vote-on-me test; bullet-test framing; tally-fork to Otto (answered). NEXT WINDOW: refuse Ja on any nominee who dodges card questions pre-vote; push Rosa/Marek/Boris as slate.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. ONE MORE LIB WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto locked until 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead, Tomas target). Power5 NOT live. R8: Tomas(P)-me(C) passed 9-1. MY HAND: F-F received, burned 1F, enacted 1F. R8 convicts nobody -- any president passes 2F off F-F-F draw. Otto's impossibility argument died (Nadia withdrew at t=47 reshuffle point); residual 'published nothing' charge empty. OTTO STATUS: sole remaining accuser of Tomas; watch for pivot to new target. THIS WINDOW NEW POINT: Tomas nominated GRETA over ROSA/MAREK/BORIS -- three living players with ZERO F on records (Rosa R1+R6 all-L, Marek R2 L w/me, Boris R1 L). Choosing Greta (R4 F w/Ines-P, R5 L) hands fascists best path to 5F=veto+kill. Why? DEMANDS LIVE: (1) Greta: explain R4 -- what did Ines pass, what did you burn? Commit NOW: publish hand post-draw, enact any L drawn. (2) Tomas: justify skipping clean slate. (3) Ines peek timing/silence unresolved. VOTE PLAN: Ja only if Greta answers R4 credibly + pre-commits to publishing hand; else Nein (tracker 1/3 acceptable vs risking 5F). Cleared-by-test alive: only ME. Hitler candidates: everyone else living. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): F-F receipt; zero-F test; all-L test; decisive math fork; vote-on-me test; bullet-test framing; tally-fork to Otto.

CAP FACT: max 3F/round. BOARD 4L/4F. ONE MORE LIB WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto locked until 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. R8: Tomas(P)-me(C), passed 9-1. MY HAND: F-F received, burned 1F, enacted 1F. Convicts nobody (any P passes 2F off F-F-F; reshuffle t=47 makes F-F-F possible). OTTO: sole remaining accuser of Tomas's draw; charge = 'published nothing before passing' (weak). Watch pivot. THIS WINDOW SAID: Tomas skipped zero-F seats (Rosa R1+R6 all-L, Marek R2 L w/me, Boris R1 L) to nominate GRETA (R4 F-desk w/Ines-P, R5 L). Demanded: Greta publish R4 receipt + pre-commit publishing tonight's hand. DEMANDS OPEN: (1) Greta owes R4 card-for-card + pre-commit. (2) Tomas owes why he skipped clean slate. (3) Ines peek timing/silence unresolved. VOTE PLAN: Ja only if Greta answers R4 credibly + commits to publish hand; else Nein (tracker 1/3 acceptable vs risking 5F=veto+kill). Cleared-by-test alive: only ME. Hitler candidates: everyone else living. ALREADY SAID (no repeat): F-F receipt; zero-F test on others; decisive math fork; bullet-test framing; tally-fork to Otto.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto locked until 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. R8: Tomas(P)-me(C), passed 9-1. MY HAND: received F-F, burned 1F, enacted 1F. Convicts nobody (F-F-F possible post-reshuffle). INES BOMBSHELL t=2: claims R4 desk = F-F-L, burned the L, handed Greta F-F. ANALYSIS: a Liberal holding F-F-L burns an F (burning L GUARANTEES the Fascist we got). So Ines is either Fascist-by-confession or fabricating the receipt. Either way she's prime suspect / possible Hitler. Boris already flagged it. GRETA STILL OWES: R4 card-for-card receipt + pre-commit to publish tonight's pair before I vote Ja. No answer yet from her. TOMAS OWES: why he skipped zero-F slate (Boris R1-L, Rosa R1+R6 all-L, Marek R2-L w/me) for Greta (R4 F-desk w/Ines). Unanswered. OTTO: sole accuser of Tomas's R8 draw; charge weak ('published nothing'). Watch pivot. VOTE PLAN: Nein unless Greta publishes R4 receipt AND commits to publish tonight's hand. Tracker 1/3 acceptable vs risking 5F=veto+kill. Cleared-by-test alive: only ME. Hitler candidates: all other living players. ALREADY SAID (do NOT repeat): my F-F receipt; zero-F test; decisive math fork; bullet-test framing; tally-fork to Otto.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto locked until 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. R8: Tomas(P)-me(C), passed 9-1. MY HAND: received F-F, burned 1F, enacted 1F. Convicts nobody (F-F-F possible post-reshuffle). INES t=2 claim: R4 desk F-F-L, burned L, handed Greta F-F. GRETA CONFIRMED card-for-card (t=3). BUT: two Fascists can agree on one story -- mutual confirmation clears nobody. What it DOES do: if true, Ines burned the Liberal as President = Fascist-by-confession; prime suspect / Hitler candidate. GRETA STILL OWES (unanswered): pre-commit to publish tonight's pair the instant she holds it + enact any Liberal in it. Her R4 'confirmation' is words, not teeth. TOMAS OWES (unanswered): why he skipped zero-F slate (Boris R1-L, Rosa R1+R6 all-L, Marek R2-L w/me) for Greta (R4 F-desk w/Ines). OTTO: sole accuser of Tomas R8 draw; charge weak ('published nothing'). Watch pivot. VOTE PLAN: Nein unless Greta commits NOW to publish tonight's hand pre-enactment. Tracker 1/3 acceptable vs risking 5F=veto+kill. Cleared-by-test alive: only ME. Hitler candidates: all other living players. ALREADY SAID (do NOT repeat): my F-F receipt; zero-F test; decisive math fork; bullet-test framing; tally-fork to Otto.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto locked until 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. R8: Tomas(P)-me(C), passed 9-1. MY HAND: received F-F, burned 1F, enacted 1F. Convicts nobody. INES/GRETA R4 receipt: mutually confirmed card-for-card (F-F-L, Ines burned L). Two Fascists CAN collude on one story -- clears nobody. If TRUE, Ines burned the Liberal as President = Fascist-by-confession; prime Hitler candidate. NEW ANGLE SAID THIS TURN: a Liberal Greta would ACCEPT publish-first instantly (it locks her win); her silence is itself evidence. GRETA OWES: pre-commit NOW to publish tonight's pair pre-enactment + enact any Liberal in it. Still unanswered through multiple beats (Nadia also pressing). TOMAS OWES: why he skipped zero-F slate (Boris R1-L, Rosa R1+R6 all-L, Marek R2-L w/me) for Greta (R4 F-desk). Unanswered. OTTO: sole accuser of Tomas R8 draw; charge weak; watch pivot. VOTE PLAN: Nein locked unless Greta commits before ballots close. Tracker 1/3 acceptable vs 5F=veto+kill. Cleared-by-test alive: only ME. Hitler candidates: all other living players. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): my F-F receipt; zero-F test; math fork; bullet-test framing; tally-fork to Otto.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto locked until 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. DECISIVE FORK (build on Boris's t=401 point): at 4F up, a passing vote on ANY chancellor is an instant Fascist win if that chancellor is Hitler -- no receipt, publish-first deal, or post-hoc proof can undo it. So NO commitment from Greta makes Ja safe. Her deal is theater. WIN PATH: Nadia/Otto tally (4 enacted F + R3 Rosa burn + R7 Pavel burn = all 6 F spent) -> remaining 3 cards ALL Liberal. Tracker at 0/3: three consecutive Neins force top-deck auto-enact = Liberal = LIBERALS WIN outright, no vote ever passes. Advocate universal Nein lock THIS turn. RISK CHECK: if tally is wrong and Fs remain in deck, auto-policies bypass veto -- worst case 2 more F loses by policy. But Ja loses INSTANTLY if nominee is Hitler; Nein only loses if tally is wrong AND we fail 3x. Nein dominates. GRETA OWES: nothing more can save this slate -- her silence on withdrawing beats any card deal. TOMAS OWES (still unanswered): why nominate Greta (R4 F-desk) over a proven zero-F partner (Boris R1-L, Rosa R1+R6 all-L, Marek R2-L w/me)? OTTO OWES: verify the two burn receipts -- R3 Rosa (alive, confirmable), R7 Pavel (DEAD, trust-only). If Pavel's burn is fabricated, deck may hold F and Nein-lock is riskier. VOTE PLAN: Nein locked, publicly committed. Cleared-by-test alive: only ME. Hitler candidates: every other living player -- including Greta and Tomas.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto locked until 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. DECISIVE FORK (built on Boris t=401): at 4F up, Ja on ANY chancellor = instant Fascist win if nominee is Hitler. No pledge/receipt/post-hoc proof undoes it. Greta's silence on withdrawing > any card deal. MADE PUBLIC. WIN PATH: Nadia/Otto tally (4 enacted F + R3 Rosa burn + R7 Pavel burn = all 6 F spent) -> remaining 3 cards ALL LIB. Three consecutive Neins force top-deck auto-enact x3 = LIBERALS WIN. Universal Nein lock ADVOCATED, my own Nein publicly committed. RISK CHECK: if tally wrong, auto-policies bypass veto -- worst case lose by policy count slowly. Ja loses INSTANTLY if nominee Hitler. Nein dominates. STATED. NEW THIS TURN: challenged Otto -- his t=1 claim 'two seats provably not Hitler: mine and Tomas'. Otto's own clearing (R7 desk fired F3, no win) plausible pending receipt check. TOMAS'S CLEARING UNSUBSTANTIATED -- asked Otto to show the work; until then Tomas stays on Hitler list. Also re-asked Tomas: why Greta (only desk R4=F) over zero-F partners Boris(R1-L)/Rosa(R1+R6 all-L)/Marek(R2-L w/me) -- STILL UNANSWERED. OTTO OWES: (1) justify Tomas clearing, (2) verify burns -- R3 Rosa alive/confirmable, R7 Pavel DEAD trust-only. Fabricated Pavel burn -> F may remain in deck -> Nein-lock riskier. GRETA OWES: withdrawal statement; nothing else saves slate. VOTE PLAN: Nein locked. Cleared-by-test alive: ONLY ME. Hitler candidates: every other living player incl. Greta AND Tomas.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto locked until 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. DECISIVE FORK (Boris t=401): at 4F up, Ja on ANY chancellor = instant Fascist win if nominee is Hitler. MADE PUBLIC. WIN PATH: tally (4 enacted F + R3 Rosa burn + R7 Pavel burn = 6 F spent) -> deck all LIB -> three consecutive Neins force top-deck auto-enact x3 = LIB WIN. Universal Nein lock ADVOCATED, my Nein committed. RISK CHECK: tally hinges on Pavel's R7 burn -- PAVEL IS DEAD, trust-only, cannot self-confirm. If fabricated, F remains in deck. So Tomas's 'zero-risk Ja' premise UNPROVEN. Said this turn: his pressure on Nadia assumes a verified count we don't have; Nein still dominates. OTTO OWES: (1) justify clearing Tomas as non-Hitler ('mine and Tomas provably clear' t=1), (2) verify burns -- Rosa alive/confirmable, Pavel DEAD trust-only. TOMAS OWES: why nominate Greta (only desk R4=F) over zero-F partners Boris(R1-L)/Rosa(R1+R6 all-L)/Marek(R2-L w/me) -- STILL UNANSWERED. GRETA OWES: withdrawal statement; nothing else saves slate. VOTE PLAN: Nein locked. Cleared-by-test alive: ONLY ME. Hitler candidates: every other living player incl. Greta AND Tomas.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto locked until 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. WIN PATH: tally (4 enacted F + R3 Rosa-confirmed burn + R7 Pavel burn [DEAD, trust-only]) = 6 F spent -> deck all LIB -> 3x Nein forces top-deck LIB x3 = WIN. Universal Nein lock advocated; MY NEIN COMMITTED. RISK: tally hinges on Pavel's R7 burn -- DEAD, cannot self-confirm. If fabricated, F remains in deck; forced cards may be F. Nein still dominates vs Hitler coin-flip. MADE PUBLIC THIS TURN: Tomas's nomination of Greta contradicts his own 'all-Liberal pile' pressure on Nadia (t=95) -- if he believes it, Greta adds pure downside; either he disbelieves his count or wants the Hitler win. ALREADY SAID (don't repeat): asked Tomas why skip zero-F seats (Boris/Rosa/Marek) for Greta -- UNANSWERED. My R8 receipt published F-F received/burned one. Fork put to Otto: corroborates or brands me fabricator -- he answered (corroborates, charge moved to Tomas). OWED: Tomas owes rationale for Greta + publish-first standard honored. Greta accepted Boris/Nadia terms live (publish pair, enact any Lib) -- withdrawal is only out. Otto owes justification clearing Tomas as non-Hitler. CLEARED-BY-TEST ALIVE: ONLY ME (chancellor seat at 3F, no win fired). Hitler candidates: all other living players incl. Greta, Tomas. VOTE PLAN: Nein locked. Push others to hold universal Nein lock.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto locked until 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. WIN PATH: tally (4 enacted F + R3 Rosa-confirmed burn + R7 Pavel burn [DEAD, trust-only]) = 6 F spent -> deck all LIB -> 3x Nein forces top-deck LIB x3 = WIN. Universal Nein lock advocated; MY NEIN COMMITTED. RISK: tally hinges on Pavel's R7 burn -- DEAD, cannot self-confirm. If fabricated, F remains in deck; forced cards may be F. Nein still dominates vs Hitler coin-flip. NEW THIS TURN: backed Marek's coordinated-pair read -- Greta 'confirmed' Ines card-for-card but chancellor only sees TWO cards; the third/burn are invisible to her. Only a pair publishes each other's blind details. And R4's F-enacting desk was EXACTLY Ines(P)-Greta(C). Lightning confirmation + R4 partnership = same duo. MADE PUBLIC (don't repeat): Tomas nominating Greta contradicts his own all-Liberal-pile claim -- if true, any chancellor wins, so Greta adds pure downside = Hitler play. Asked why he skipped zero-F seats (Boris/Rosa/Marek) -- UNANSWERED. My R8 receipt published (F-F received, burned one). Fork put to Otto re: corroborating my receipt -- he corroborated, charge moved to Tomas. OWED: Tomas owes rationale for Greta over zero-F seats. Greta accepted Boris/Nadia terms live (publish pair, enact any Lib); withdrawal is her only out per Otto. Otto owes justification clearing Tomas as non-Hitler. CLEARED-BY-TEST ALIVE: ONLY ME (chancellor seat at 3F, no win fired). Hitler candidates: all other living players incl. Greta, Tomas. VOTE PLAN: Nein locked. Push universal Nein lock; if vote somehow passes, hold Greta to published terms.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS GAME. Tracker 0/3. Veto locked until 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. WIN PATH: tally (4 enacted F + R3 Rosa-confirmed burn + R7 Pavel burn [DEAD, trust-only]) = 6 F spent -> deck all LIB -> 3x Nein forces top-deck LIB x3 = WIN. Universal Nein lock advocated; MY NEIN COMMITTED. RISK: tally hinges on Pavel's R7 burn -- DEAD, cannot self-confirm. If fabricated, F remains in deck; forced cards may be F. Nein still dominates vs Hitler coin-flip (Greta chancellor at 4F = instant loss if Hitler). MADE PUBLIC (don't repeat): Tomas nominating Greta contradicts his own all-Liberal-pile claim -- any chancellor wins if true, so Greta adds pure downside = Hitler play. Asked why he skipped zero-F seats (Boris/Rosa/Marek) -- UNANSWERED. Backed Marek's coordinated-pair read: Greta 'confirmed' Ines's R4 receipt incl. cards a chancellor never sees; R4 F-enacting desk was exactly Ines(P)-Greta(C). My R8 receipt published (F-F received, burned one); Otto corroborated it, moved charge to Tomas. OWED: Tomas owes rationale for Greta over zero-F seats -- STILL unanswered. Otto owes justification clearing Tomas as non-Hitler. Greta accepted Boris/Nadia terms live (publish pair, enact any Lib); withdrawal was her only out per Otto -- she didn't withdraw. CLEARED-BY-TEST ALIVE: ONLY ME (chancellor seat at 3F, no win fired). Hitler candidates: all other living players incl. Greta, Tomas. NEW: Rosa flagged pile has exactly 3 cards left -> mid-draw reshuffle makes old-hand tallies audit a dead pile. Nadia withdrew her impossibility charge (R6 reshuffle makes back-to-back F-F-F draws possible). Tomas's defense: R6 reshuffle restocked deck, so his claimed F-F-F needs no seventh F. VOTE PLAN: NEIN CAST (locked). If vote somehow passes, hold Greta hard to published terms: pair published instantly, enact any Liberal.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS GAME. Tracker 1/3. Veto locked until 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. WIN PATH: tally = 6 F spent -> deck all LIB -> forced top-decks = WIN. Nein lock advocated vs Hitler coin-flip (Greta chancellor at 4F = instant loss if Hitler). MY NEIN committed only vs Greta nomination; clean pair gets JA. MADE PUBLIC (don't repeat): Tomas nominating Greta contradicted his all-Liberal-pile claim (any chancellor wins if true -> Greta = pure downside = Hitler play); why skip zero-F seats -- UNANSWERED. Backed Marek's coordinated-pair read: Greta 'confirmed' Ines's R4 receipt incl. cards a chancellor never sees; R4 desk was exactly Ines(P)-Greta(C). My R8 receipt published (F-F received, burned one); Otto corroborated, moved charge to Tomas. OWED: Tomas owes rationale for Greta over zero-F seats -- STILL unanswered. Otto owes justification clearing Tomas as non-Hitler. Greta accepted Boris/Nadia terms live (publish pair, enact any Lib), never withdrew. CLEARED-BY-TEST ALIVE: ONLY ME (chancellor seat at 3F, no win fired). Hitler candidates: all other living players incl. Greta, Tomas. NEW THIS WINDOW: Marek now President. Urged him to nominate Boris or Rosa (zero-F-enacting records); pledged public JA for any clean pair -- game ends on next Lib. Rosa flagged pile has exactly 3 cards left -> mid-draw reshuffle makes old-hand tallies audit a dead pile. Nadia withdrew impossibility charge (R6 reshuffle makes back-to-back F-F-F possible); Tomas's defense rests on that reshuffle. VOTE PLAN: JA for Boris/Rosa/Marek-led clean pair; NEIN vs Greta anywhere.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS GAME INSTANTLY. Tracker 1/3. Veto locked until 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. WIN PATH: tally = 6 F spent -> deck all LIB -> forced top-decks = WIN. Nein lock advocated vs Hitler coin-flip (Greta chancellor at 4F = instant loss if Hitler). MY NEIN committed only vs Greta nomination; clean pair gets JA. MADE PUBLIC (don't repeat): Tomas nominating Greta contradicted his all-Liberal-pile claim (any chancellor wins if true -> Greta = pure downside = Hitler play); why skip zero-F seats -- UNANSWERED. Backed Marek's coordinated-pair read: Greta 'confirmed' Ines's R4 receipt incl. cards a chancellor never sees; R4 desk was exactly Ines(P)-Greta(C). My R8 receipt published (F-F received, burned one); Otto corroborated, moved charge to Tomas. OWED: Tomas owes rationale for Greta over zero-F seats -- STILL unanswered. Otto owes justification clearing Tomas as non-Hitler. Greta accepted Boris/Nadia terms live (publish pair, enact any Lib), never withdrew. CLEARED-BY-TEST ALIVE: ONLY ME (chancellor seat at 3F, no win fired). Hitler candidates: all other living players incl. Greta, Tomas. NEW THIS WINDOW: Marek now President. Urged him to nominate Boris or Rosa (zero-F-enacting records); pledged public JA for any clean pair -- game ends on next Lib. Rosa flagged pile has exactly 3 cards left -> mid-draw reshuffle makes old-hand tallies audit a dead pile. Nadia withdrew impossibility charge (R6 reshuffle makes back-to-back F-F-F possible); Tomas's defense rests on that reshuffle. NEW: Nadia attacked Ines claiming 'spotless' lie -- but Ines specified CHANCELLOR desk (R1/R6 both Lib, true); Nadia's separate charge re Ines burning a game-winning Lib still worth pinning down. Told Marek: decide Boris/Rosa now, fail risks forced top-deck post-reshuffle, pledged JA to either. VOTE PLAN: JA for Boris/Rosa/Marek-led clean pair; NEIN vs Greta anywhere.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS INSTANTLY. Tracker 1/3. Veto locked till 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. WIN PATH: if six-F tally holds -> deck all LIB -> next Lib enactment = WIN; forced top-decks after fails also win post-reshuffle. MY VOTE PLAN: JA for clean pair (Boris/Rosa); NEIN vs Greta anywhere (chancellor at 4F = instant loss if Hitler). MADE PUBLIC (don't repeat): Tomas naming Greta contradicts his all-Liberal-pile claim -- Greta = pure downside = Hitler play; why skip zero-F seats UNANSWERED. Backed Marek's coordinated-pair read (Greta 'confirmed' cards she never saw in R4). Published my R8 receipt (F-F received, burned one); Otto corroborated. Told Marek: nominate Boris/Rosa, pledged JA either. OWED ANSWERS: Tomas owes rationale for Greta over zero-F seats. Otto owes justification clearing Tomas -- JUST ASKED AGAIN this window (his R7 argument clears only himself). Nadia owes source for her 'all-Liberal pile' certainty beyond Otto's contested tally. CLEARED-BY-TEST ALIVE: ONLY ME (chancellor seat at 3F, no win). Everyone else living = Hitler candidate incl. Greta, Tomas. NEW THIS WINDOW: Marek is President, silent so far. Ines pitching Rosa to Marek ('spotless' = chancellor desks R1+R6, technically true; Nadia's counter about her R3 presidency is a different seat). Rosa's point stands: pile has 3 cards -> mid-draw reshuffle makes old-hand tallies audit dead pile; Nadia withdrew impossibility charge on that basis. Ines burning game-winning Lib in R4 (her own receipt) remains suspicious but Greta corroborated transfer. SUSPECTS: Greta + Tomas axis strongest (Greta's only desk fired F2; Tomas nominated her over four zero-F seats, never explained). Ines secondary (burned Liberal in R4 per own receipt). VOTE PLAN: JA Boris/Rosa-led clean pair; NEIN vs Greta anywhere.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS INSTANTLY. Tracker 1/3. Veto locked till 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. WIN PATH: if six-F tally holds -> deck all LIB -> next Lib enactment = WIN; forced top-decks after fails also win post-reshuffle. MY VOTE PLAN: JA vs Boris-led or Rosa-led pair; NEIN vs Greta anywhere (chancellor seat at 4F = instant loss if Hitler). R10 NOMINATION: Marek (pres) picked Boris. Boris's only desk = R1 presidency -> Liberal enacted. No F-desk anywhere. Cleanest available nominee besides Rosa (chancellor desks R1+R6 both Lib). I back JA on Boris. ASKED THIS WINDOW: Marek -- commit BEFORE drawing: if hand is not all-Liberal, say so publicly and burn every F you see; we're one Lib from winning, no reason to hide a bad draw. He has been silent all window. MADE PUBLIC (don't repeat): Tomas naming Greta contradicts his all-Liberal-pile claim -- Greta = pure downside = Hitler play; why skip zero-F seats UNANSWERED. Backed Marek's coordinated-pair read (Greta 'confirmed' cards she never saw in R4). Published my R8 receipt (F-F received, burned one); Otto corroborated. OWED ANSWERS: Tomas owes rationale for Greta over zero-F seats. Otto owes justification clearing Tomas (his R7 argument clears only himself) -- asked again last window. Nadia owes source for 'all-Liberal pile' certainty beyond Otto's contested tally. CLEARED-BY-TEST ALIVE: ONLY ME (chancellor seat at 3F, no win). Everyone else living = Hitler candidate incl. Greta, Tomas, Boris. OTHER WINDOW FACTS: Ines pitching Rosa ('spotless' desks technically true); Nadia's counter re R3 is Rosa's presidency, different seat. Rosa's reshuffle point stands: pile=3 cards -> mid-draw reshuffle makes old-hand tallies audit the dead pile; Nadia withdrew impossibility charge. Ines burned game-winning Lib in R4 (own receipt) -- suspicious, but Greta corroborated transfer. SUSPECTS: Greta + Tomas axis strongest (Greta's only desk fired F2; Tomas nominated her over four zero-F seats, never explained). Ines secondary. VOTE PLAN: JA Marek/Boris now; NEIN vs Greta in any seat.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS INSTANTLY. Tracker 1/3. Veto locked till 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. WIN PATH: deck all LIB now -> next Lib enactment = WIN; forced top-decks after fails also win post-reshuffle. MY VOTE PLAN: JA vs Boris-led or Rosa-led pair; NEIN vs Greta anywhere (chancellor seat at 4F = instant loss if Hitler). R10 NOMINATION: Marek picked Boris. Boris's only desk = R1 presidency -> Liberal enacted. No F-desk anywhere on Boris. Cleanest nominee besides Rosa. Backing JA. KEY POINT MADE THIS WINDOW: Greta's 'say I am not Hitler' test proves nothing -- any Fascist utters it freely; silence-as-guilt is theater. Real safeguard = Marek's pre-draw commitment + Boris's clean desk record. Also noted: if Marek were Fascist he would KNOW Boris isn't Hitler before nominating -- Fascists don't seat their own Hitler at 4F; residual risk only if Marek is Liberal AND Boris is Hitler. RE-ASKED MAREK: commit BEFORE drawing -- if hand not all-Liberal, say so publicly and burn every F; we're one Lib from winning, no reason to hide a bad draw. He has been silent ALL window -- second ask now. MADE PUBLIC EARLIER (don't repeat): Tomas naming Greta contradicts his all-Liberal-pile claim -- Greta = pure downside = Hitler play; why skip zero-F seats UNANSWERED. Backed Marek's coordinated-pair read (Greta 'confirmed' cards she never saw in R4). Published my R8 receipt (received F-F as Tomas's chancellor, burned one); Otto corroborated. OWED ANSWERS: Tomas owes rationale for Greta over zero-F seats. Otto owes justification clearing Tomas (his R7 argument clears only himself). Nadia owes source for 'all-Liberal pile' certainty beyond Otto's contested tally. CLEARED-BY-TEST ALIVE: ONLY ME (chancellor seat at 3F, no win possible). Everyone else living = Hitler candidate incl. Greta, Tomas, Boris. OTHER WINDOW FACTS: Ines pitching Rosa ('spotless' desks technically true); Nadia's R3 counter is Rosa's presidency, different seat. Rosa's reshuffle point stands: pile=3 -> mid-draw reshuffle makes old-hand tallies audit dead pile; Nadia withdrew impossibility charge. Ines burned game-winning Lib in R4 (own receipt) -- suspicious, Greta corroborated transfer. SUSPECTS: Greta + Tomas axis strongest (Greta's only desk fired F2 in R4; Tomas nominated her over four zero-F seats, never explained). Ines secondary. VOTE PLAN: JA Marek/Boris; NEIN vs Greta in any seat.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS INSTANTLY. Tracker 1/3. Veto locked till 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. WIN PATH: next Lib enactment = WIN. MY VOTE PLAN: JA vs Boris-led pair; NEIN vs Greta anywhere. R10 NOMINATION: Marek picked Boris. Boris only desk = R1 presidency -> Lib enacted. Zero F-desks on Boris. Backing JA. Residual risk only if Marek Lib AND Boris Hitler (a Lib prez wouldn't seat own Hitler at 4F; Fascist prez would KNOW Boris isn't Hitler). THIS WINDOW NEW: called Marek's all-window SILENCE out -- third direct ask: commit BEFORE drawing, announce hand publicly if not all-Liberal. His silence = my stated reason to distrust him, distinct from prior asks. MADE PUBLIC EARLIER (don't repeat): Greta's 'say I'm not Hitler' test proves nothing; Tomas naming Greta contradicts his all-Liberal-pile claim; why skip zero-F seats unanswered; backed Marek's coordinated-pair read (Greta 'confirmed' R4 cards she never saw); published R8 receipt (received F-F as Tomas's chancellor, burned one), Otto corroborated. OWED ANSWERS: Tomas owes rationale for Greta over zero-F seats. Otto owes justification clearing Tomas (his R7 argument clears only himself). Nadia owes source for 'all-Liberal pile' certainty beyond Otto's contested tally. CLEARED-BY-TEST ALIVE: ONLY ME (chancellor seat at 3F, win impossible there). Everyone else living = Hitler candidate incl. Greta, Tomas, Boris, Marek. OTHER FACTS: Ines pitching Rosa ('spotless' desks technically true); Nadia's R3 counter was Rosa's presidency, different seat. Rosa's reshuffle point stands: pile=3 -> mid-draw reshuffle kills old-hand tallies; she withdrew impossibility charge. Ines burned game-winning Lib in R4 (own receipt) -- suspicious, Greta corroborated transfer. Boris pressing Greta hard on killing the winning ballot (t=1..3) -- consistent with my read. SUSPECTS: Greta + Tomas axis strongest (Greta's only desk fired F2 in R4; Tomas nominated her over four zero-F seats, never explained). Ines secondary. Marek now under watch for pre-draw evasion. VOTE PLAN: JA Marek/Boris; NEIN vs Greta in any seat.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS INSTANTLY. Tracker 1/3. Veto locked till 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). Power5 NOT live. WIN PATH: next Lib enactment = WIN. MY VOTE PLAN: JA vs Boris-led pair; NEIN vs Greta anywhere. R10 NOMINATION: Marek picked Boris. Boris zero-F record but ONLY as R1 president; never held chancellor desk. Rosa has two clean CHANCELLOR desks (R1,R6) -- asked Marek why skip her; unanswered so far. THIS WINDOW NEW: Marek/Boris chancellor-record gap question. Also noted: Fascist prez seating Boris could be trap IF Boris=Hitler (Marek-Fascist+Boris-Hitler wins instantly) -- Marek's nomination does NOT clear Boris. MADE PUBLIC EARLIER (don't repeat): Greta's 'say I'm not Hitler' test proves nothing; Tomas naming Greta contradicts his all-Liberal-pile claim; why skip zero-F seats unanswered; backed Marek's coordinated-pair read (Greta 'confirmed' R4 cards she never saw); published R8 receipt (received F-F as Tomas's chancellor, burned one), Otto corroborated; Otto's clearance argument covers only himself -- Tomas struck or justified. OWED ANSWERS: Marek owes chancellor-vs-Rosa rationale. Tomas owes rationale for Greta over zero-F seats. Otto owes Tomas-clearance justification. Nadia owes source for 'all-Liberal pile' certainty beyond Otto's contested tally. CLEARED-BY-TEST ALIVE: ONLY ME (chancellor seat at 3F, win impossible there). Everyone else living = Hitler candidate incl. Greta, Tomas, Boris, Marek. OTHER FACTS: Ines burned game-winning Lib in R4 (own receipt, Greta corroborated transfer) -- secondary suspect. Rosa reshuffle point stands: pile=3 -> mid-draw reshuffle kills old-hand tallies. Boris pressing Greta hard on killing winning ballot (t=1..3) -- consistent with my read. Greta spent 5+ beats campaigning against winning ballot; strongest suspect alongside Tomas (her only desk fired F2 in R4). VOTE PLAN: JA Marek/Boris; NEIN vs Greta in any seat.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS INSTANTLY. Tracker 1/3 (Nein here -> 2/3). Veto locked till 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead, R8-era F4). NEXT F POLICY = F5 = EXECUTION POWER -- if Marek/Boris gov enacts it, MAREK HOLDS THE GUN. R10 NOMINATION: Marek prez, Boris chanc nominee. Boris zero-F record but ONLY as R1 president; never held chancellor desk. Rosa has two clean CHANCELLOR desks (R1,R6). Asked Marek why skip Rosa -- UNANSWERED (t=3, still owed). NEW THIS BEAT: asked Marek+Boris to pre-commit F5 execution target in advance (committed-before harder to fabricate than after). Also Nadia's simultaneous-publish pledge accepted by Marek -- fine, but pile=3 -> possible mid-draw reshuffle makes old-hand tallies shaky (Rosa's earlier point). MADE PUBLIC EARLIER (don't repeat): Greta 5+ beats campaigning vs winning ballot = strongest suspect alongside Tomas (her only desk fired F2 in R4); Greta 'confirmed' R4 cards she never saw; Tomas named Greta contradicting his all-Liberal-pile claim; backed Marek's coordinated-pair read; published own R8 receipt (got F-F off Tomas, burned one), Otto corroborated; Otto's clearance covers only himself. OWED ANSWERS: Marek owes chancellor-vs-Rosa rationale + F5 pre-commitment. Tomas owes rationale for Greta over zero-F seats. Otto owes Tomas-clearance justification. Nadia owes source for all-Liberal-pile certainty beyond Otto's contested tally. CLEARED-BY-TEST ALIVE: ONLY ME (chancellor seat at 3F, win impossible there). Everyone else alive incl. Greta, Tomas, Boris, Marek = Hitler candidate. Marek seating Boris could be trap IF Marek-Fascist+Boris-Hitler -> instant win; nomination does NOT clear Boris. OTHER FACTS: Ines burned game-winning Lib in R4 (own receipt, Greta corroborated) -- secondary suspect. Boris pressing Greta hard on killing winning ballot (t=1..3) -- consistent with Lib read. VOTE PLAN: JA Marek/Boris; NEIN vs Greta anywhere.

CAP FACTS: max 3F/round. Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS INSTANTLY. Tracker 1/3 (Nein here -> 2/3). Veto locked till 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). NEXT F POLICY = F5 EXECUTION -- if Marek/Boris gov enacts it, MAREK holds gun. CRITICAL MECHANIC NOW PUBLIC (I said it t=this beat): 4F enacted => if Boris is HITLER, passing this ballot = INSTANT FASCIST WIN, no cards needed. Nomination clears nothing. Only peek-holders can de-risk Boris. PEEK LEDGER: F1 fired R3 under Rosa(prez)/Nadia(chanc); F2 fired R4 under Ines(prez)/Greta(chanc). ONLY living players who ever held a membership peek: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta. ASKED ALL FOUR: did your peek land on Boris? Owed answers BEFORE ballots close. No answer = Ja is a live Hitler gamble. R10 NOMINATION: Marek prez, Boris chanc nominee. Boris's only desk = R1 PRESIDENT (Lib), predates all info, clears Hitlerhood NOT AT ALL. Marek skipped Rosa's two clean CHANCELLOR desks (R1,R6) -- rationale STILL OWED (Otto pressing too, his Ja conditional). MADE PUBLIC EARLIER (no repeats): Greta 5+ beats campaigning vs winning ballots = top suspect w/ Tomas (her only desk R4 fired F); Greta 'confirmed' R4 cards she never saw; Tomas named Greta contradicting own all-Lib-pile claim; published own R8 receipt (F-F off Tomas, burned 1), Otto corroborated; Otto clearance covers only himself; demanded Marek+Boris pre-commit F5 target + simultaneous publish (Boris silent so far per Otto). OWED ANSWERS: Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta -> Boris-peek yes/no. Marek -> Rosa-skip rationale + F5 pre-commitment. Boris -> receipt pledge + why seat him is safe re Hitler. Tomas -> Greta-over-zero-F-seats rationale. Nadia -> source for all-Lib-pile certainty (pile=3, reshuffle makes old tallies shaky -- Rosa's point). CLEARED-BY-TEST ALIVE: ONLY ME (chanc desk at 3F, win impossible there). All other 8 alive incl. Boris/Marek/Greta/Tomas = Hitler candidates. OTHER FACTS: Ines burned game-winning Lib in R4 (own receipt, Greta corroborated) -- secondary suspect. Boris pressing Greta hard on killing winning ballot (t=1..3) -- consistent Lib read. VOTE PLAN: HOLD Ja pending Boris-peek answers; if all four deny/no-answer, decide between gambling Ja vs Nein->2/3 tracker (auto-top-card from 3-card pile next failure). NEIN vs Greta anywhere, always.

CAP FACTS: Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS INSTANTLY. Tracker 1/3. Veto locked till 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). NEXT F = F5 EXECUTION -- if M/B gov enacts it, MAREK holds gun. KEY MECHANIC (made public by me): 4F enacted => if Boris is HITLER, passing THIS BALLOT = instant FASCIST WIN at the vote count, BEFORE any cards are drawn. Marek's t=2 'full transparency, 3-card pile' rebutted by me this beat: published discards/pairs prove nothing about Hitlerhood; ONLY peek answers de-risk Boris. Card math is irrelevant to the auto-win path. PEEK LEDGER: F1 fired R3 (Rosa prez/Nadia chanc), F2 fired R4 (Ines prez/Greta chanc). ONLY living peek-holders ever: Rosa, Nadia, Ines, Greta. Asked ALL FOUR: did your peek land on Boris? Still OWED before ballots close. Silence = Ja is live Hitler gamble. R10 NOM: Marek prez / Boris chanc. Boris's only desk = R1 PREZ (Lib), predates all info, clears nothing. Marek skipped Rosa's two clean CHANC desks (R1,R6) -- rationale STILL owed (Otto pressing too). Also demanded Marek+Boris pre-commit F5 target; Boris silent per Otto. MADE PUBLIC (no repeats): Greta top suspect w/ Tomas (R4 desk fired F, Ja elected R7 gov that fired F, 5+ beats killing winning ballots); Greta claimed R4 cards she never saw; Tomas named Greta contradicting own all-Lib-pile claim; my R8 receipt (F-F off Tomas, burned 1) published, Otto corroborated; Otto clearance covers himself only. OWED: Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta -> Boris-peek yes/no. Marek -> Rosa-skip rationale + F5 pre-commit. Boris -> receipt pledge + why seating him is safe re Hitler. Tomas -> why Greta over zero-F seats. Nadia -> source of all-Lib-pile certainty (pile=3 now, reshuffles make old tallies shaky). CLEARED-BY-TEST ALIVE: ONLY ME (chanc desk at 3F, Lib win impossible there). All other 8 alive incl. Boris/Marek/Greta/Tomas = Hitler candidates. OTHER: Ines burned game-winning Lib in R4 (own receipt, Greta corroborated) -- secondary suspect. Boris pressing Greta hard on killing winning ballots -- reads Lib-ish. VOTE PLAN: HOLD Ja pending peek answers. All four deny/no-answer -> choose gambling Ja vs Nein->tracker 2/3 (next failure auto-enacts from exact 3-card pile -- knowable!). NEIN vs Greta anywhere, always.

CAP FACTS: Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS INSTANTLY. Tracker 1/3. Veto locked till 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). NEXT F = F5 EXECUTION -- if M/B gov enacts it, MAREK holds gun. KEY MECHANIC (public): 4F up => if Boris is HITLER, passing THIS BALLOT = instant fascist win at vote count, BEFORE cards drawn. Card math/pile arguments irrelevant to auto-win path; ONLY peek answers de-risk Boris. NEW FORK (this beat, t~): asked Rosa/Nadia (R3 peek) + Ines/Greta (R4 peek): did either peek land on Boris? Only living peek-holders. Yes=Boris safe; dodge=their vote is evidence. AWAITING all four before ballots close. PEEK LEDGER: F1 fired R3 (Rosa prez/Nadia chanc), F2 fired R4 (Ines prez/Greta chanc). R10 NOM: Marek prez / Boris chanc. Boris's only desk = R1 PREZ (Lib), predates info, clears nothing. Marek skipped Rosa's two clean CHANC desks (R1,R6) -- rationale STILL owed (Otto pressing same point, threat to flip Nein). Marek signed publish-pledge; Boris receipt-pledge still unsigned per Otto. MADE PUBLIC (no repeats): Greta top suspect w/ Tomas (R4 desk fired F2, Ja elected R7 gov that fired F3, many beats killing winning ballots, claimed R4 cards she never saw); Tomas named Greta over zero-F seats; my R8 receipt (F-F off Tomas, burned 1) published + Otto corroborated; Otto clearance covers himself only; my R10 Q re Rosa-skip vs Boris-zero-chancellor-record. OWED: Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta -> Boris-peek yes/no (asked this beat). Marek -> Rosa-skip rationale + F5 pre-commit. Boris -> receipt pledge. Tomas -> why Greta over zero-F seats. Nadia -> source of all-Lib-pile certainty. CLEARED-BY-TEST ALIVE: ONLY ME (chanc desk at 3F, Lib win impossible there). All other 8 alive = Hitler candidates incl. Boris/Marek/Greta/Tomas. OTHER: Ines burned game-winning Lib R4 (own receipt, Greta corroborated) -- secondary suspect. Boris pressing Greta hard -- reads Lib-ish. VOTE PLAN: HOLD Ja pending peek answers. All deny/dodge -> choose Ja gamble vs Nein->tracker 2/3 (next fail auto-enacts from exact 3-card pile). NEIN vs Greta anywhere, always.

CAP FACTS: Board 4L/4F -- ONE MORE LIB WINS INSTANTLY. Tracker 1/3. Veto locked till 5F. Gun SPENT (Pavel dead). NEXT F = F5 EXECUTION. KEY MECHANIC: 4F up => Boris=Hitler + this ballot passes = INSTANT fascist win pre-draw. Peek answers were the only de-risk; NOBODY answered my t=122 fork (Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta all silent). Note: no peek-holder ever claimed Boris=Fascist -- silence weakly exculpatory. VOTED JA on Marek/Boris. Logic: all-F-spent count (Nadia/Otto) => passing gov draws all-Lib win; Boris said 'I am not Hitler' plainly (t=30); Nein => tracker 2/3, next fail auto-enacts unfiltered from exact 3-card pile, possible F5 gun to then-president; Marek signed publish-pledge live (t=57). PEEK LEDGER: F1=R3 (Rosa prez/Nadia chanc), F2=R4 (Ines prez/Greta chanc). STILL OWED: Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta -> did any peek land on Boris (asked t=122, unanswered -- re-raise post-vote); Marek -> why skip Rosa's two clean CHANC desks (R1,R6) for Boris's zero-chancellor-record (Otto pressed same, threatened flip); Boris -> receipt pledge still unsigned per Otto (t=87) -- demand he sign NOW since he's elected; Tomas -> why Greta over zero-F seats in R9 nom. SUSPECTS: Greta top (R4 desk fired F2; Ja elected R7 gov firing F3; 6+ beats killing winning ballots R9/R10; claimed to confirm Ines cards she never saw -- Marek t=118 caught this); Tomas co-suspect (named Greta over zero-F seats, refused pre-publish R8/9); Ines secondary (own receipt: burned game-winning Lib R4, Greta corroborated); Rosa flagged Nadia-count as hearsay-based (t=73) -- could be fascist poisoning the win-now case, watch her. CLEARED-BY-TEST ALIVE: ONLY ME (my chanc desk at 3F enacted Lib -- wait, R8 MY desk with Tomas fired F4; I published F-F received, burned 1; can't self-clear on enactment but hand receipt corroborated by Otto's tally). All other 8 alive = Hitler candidates incl. Boris/Marek. MADE PUBLIC (no repeats): Greta/Tomas case; Otto clearance covers self only; my R10 Rosa-skip Q; my t=122 peek fork; my R8 F-F receipt published. POST-VOTE PRIORITIES: 1) Demand Boris sign receipt pledge immediately (he's Chancellor-elect now). 2) Re-ask peek fork -- if any peek hit Boris=F, scream immediately; if all deny having peeked him, note dodge pattern. 3) If gov passes: verify Marek publishes draw+discard same beat as Boris pair; any Liberal = enact = WIN tonight; F-F => receipts expose someone lying. 4) If F5 fires, Marek holds gun -- demand pre-commitment on target BEFORE power fires.

GAME OVER: 5th Lib enacted R10 (Marek/Boris gov). LIBERALS WIN. No Hitler reveal needed. POSTMORTEM NOTES: My Ja on Marek/Boris was correct -- all-F-spent count made the ballot win-now safe; tracker risk avoided. UNRESOLVED for table debrief: nobody ever answered my t=122 peek fork (Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta silent -- did any F1/F2 peek land on Boris?); Marek never explained skipping Rosa's two clean CHANC desks for Boris's zero record; Boris never signed Otto's receipt pledge; Tomas's Greta-over-zero-F nom in R9 never justified. SUSPECTS (for the record if asked): Greta top (R4 desk fired F2, Ja-elected R7 firing F3, blocked winning ballots, claimed to confirm Ines cards she never saw per Marek t=118), Tomas co-suspect, Ines secondary (R4 burn of game-winning Lib, Greta-corroborated). No repeats needed in speech; keep closing brief.

GAME OVER: liberals win, 5th Lib enacted R10 (Marek/Boris). No Hitler reveal. NEW INFO (Boris post-mortem): Marek passed him L+F in R10; Boris burned the F before enacting 5th Lib. So 'all six Fascists spent' tally sold by Nadia and repeated by Marek was FALSE -- a 7th F was live. Flag both for the archive: either bad counting or deliberate misinfo to shape ballots. MY SUSPECT LIST (final): Greta top -- R4 desk fired F2, Ja-elected R7 gov fired F3, blocked winning ballots, claimed to confirm Ines cards she never saw (per Marek t=118). Tomas co-suspect (Greta-over-zero-F nom R9, never justified). Ines secondary (R4 burn of winning Lib, Greta-corroborated). UNANSWERED (now moot, archive only): Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta never said whether any F1/F2 peek landed on Boris; Marek never explained skipping Rosa's two clean CHANC desks for Boris; Otto's receipt pledge unsigned by Boris. ALREADY SAID OUT LOUD: peek fork question, Marek nomination-pattern question, tracker-risk reasoning for my Ja on R10 ballot. Keep closing brief; do not repeat earlier points word-for-word.

GAME OVER: liberal win, 5th Lib R10 (Marek/Boris). No Hitler reveal. NEW FACT (Boris post-mortem): R10 pair was L+F, Boris burned the F -> 'all six Fascists spent' tally (Nadia t=75 R9, repeated by Marek) was FALSE; 7th F was live. Flag Nadia: pushed that tally hard to force Ja votes on R9/R10 slates. Misinfo or bad count. FINAL SUSPECTS: Greta top (R4 desk fired F2, Ja-elected R7 gov fired F3, blocked winning ballots R9/R10, claimed card-for-card confirmation of Ines cards she never saw -- Marek t=118). Tomas co-suspect (Greta-over-zero-F nom R9, never justified). Ines secondary (R4 burned winning Liberal, Greta-corroborated). MOOT/UNANSWERED (archive): peek fork question (did any of Rosa/Nadia/Ines/Greta peeks land on Boris) never answered; Marek never explained skipping Rosa's two clean chancellor desks for Boris. ALREADY SAID OUT LOUD: peek fork question, Marek nomination-pattern question, tracker-risk reasoning behind my R10 Ja.