Player 9 (Marek)

R1 pre-vote. Marek (P9) liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID: asked Boris to name pick before vote; endorsed Ines's cross-table idea; endorsed Rosa's loud-discard + sequencing (Boris discloses first). OPEN Q nobody answered: WHY did Boris pick Rosa? Owes rationale pre-vote. Weak signals (not evidence): Lena/Pavel pushing blanket-Ja first vote. TRACK R1+: which gov pairs enact F policies; blame splits Pres/Chancellor/deck-luck. Note if Boris/Rosa stories about cards ever mismatch.

R1 pre-vote. Marek (P9) liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID: asked Boris to name pick before vote; endorsed Ines's cross-table idea; endorsed Rosa's loud-discard + sequencing (Boris discloses first). OPEN Q unanswered: WHY did Boris pick Rosa? Owes rationale pre-vote. Weak signals (not evidence): Lena/Pavel pushing blanket-Ja first vote. Otto proposed disclosures immediately post-vote (Boris discard color first, then Rosa enactment+discard) -- reasonable, no objection needed. TRACK R1+: which gov pairs enact F policies; blame splits Pres/Chancellor/deck-luck. Note if Boris/Rosa card stories mismatch.

R1 pre-vote. Marek (P9) liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID: asked WHY Boris picked Rosa (still unanswered); endorsed Ines cross-table idea; endorsed Rosa loud-discard + sequencing; Otto's post-vote disclosure order fine. NEW t=16: Boris commits to full 3-card + discard disclosure pre-enactment. Good -- hold him to it. BEFORE VOTE: re-press Boris once on Rosa rationale; if no answer, note it as data. Weak signals: Lena/Pavel pushing blanket-Ja first round. TRACK R1+: gov pairs enacting F policies; Pres/Chancellor/deck blame split; card-story mismatches between Boris & Rosa.

R1 pre-vote. Marek (P9) liberal, no info. SAID OUT LOUD: asked WHY Rosa over cross-table (ANSWERED t=31 by Boris); endorsed loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing; declared vote Ja + will hold gov to disclosure contract. Weak signals: Lena/Pavel pushing blanket-Ja before any info; Nadia/Otto early Ja declarations (neutral, nothing happened yet). TRACK R1+: gov pair Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -- if F policy enacts, split blame via card-story mismatch; check Rosa's enactment+discard exactly matches Boris's passed 2. Open Qs: none outstanding.

R1 pre-vote. Marek (P9) liberal, no info. SAID OUT LOUD: asked WHY Rosa over cross-table (ANSWERED t=31 by Boris); endorsed loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing; declared vote Ja + will hold gov to disclosure contract; demanded reason for pick before vote. Weak signals: Lena/Pavel pushing blanket-Ja pre-info; Nadia/Otto early Ja declarations (neutral, nothing happened yet). TRACK R1+: gov pair Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -- if F policy enacts, split blame via card-story mismatch; verify Rosa's enactment+discard exactly equals Boris's passed 2; both disclose immediately post-vote per Otto's protocol. Open Qs: none outstanding.

R1 pre-vote. Marek (P9) liberal, no info. SAID OUT LOUD: asked WHY Rosa over cross-table (ANSWERED t=31 by Boris: volunteered discard protocol first, not seat-neighbor); endorsed loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing; declared Ja + will hold gov to disclosure contract. Weak signals: Lena/Pavel pushing blanket-Ja pre-info; Nadia/Otto early Ja declarations -- neutral so far, nothing has happened. TRACK R1+: gov pair Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc). Post-vote verify: Boris announces all 3 cards + discard; Rosa's enactment+discard must exactly equal his passed 2. Any mismatch = one of them lying, narrow from there. If F policy enacts, both equally suspect until stories checked. Open Qs: none outstanding.

R1 pre-vote. Marek (P9) liberal, no info. SAID OUT LOUD: asked why Rosa over cross-table (answered t=31: volunteered discard protocol, not seat-neighbor); endorsed loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing; declared Ja + will hold gov to disclosure contract. VOTED: ja on Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) R1. R1 VERIFY after vote: Boris must announce all 3 drawn cards + discard FIRST; then Rosa's enactment+discard must exactly equal his passed pair. Mismatch = one lying; if F enacts both equally suspect until stories checked. Otto's calibration noted: Liberal enact clears nobody. Weak signals: Lena/Pavel pushing blanket-Ja; Nadia/Otto early Ja declarations -- neutral, nothing happened yet. Open Qs: none outstanding.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL enacted (1L/0F). Tracker 0/3. Marek liberal, no info. SAID OUT LOUD pre-vote: asked why Rosa over cross-table; endorsed loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing + disclosure contract; declared Ja; voted ja. NOW ASKING (claims phase): Boris announce all 3 drawn + his discard; Rosa state the pair she received + her discard. Pair must match Boris's claim exactly. Mismatch = one of them lying. If both check out, this gov is cleared-ish (liberal enact clears nobody fully, but consistent story = baseline trust). Watch for: vague/hedged card claims from Boris or Rosa. Neutral so far: Lena/Pavel blanket-Ja pushes; Nadia/Otto early Ja. No evidence yet. Next round president likely rotates -- watch who Rosa/Boris nominate if in power later.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL enacted (1L/0F). Tracker 0/3. Marek liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID: asked why Rosa over cross-table pick; endorsed loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing + disclosure contract; declared Ja vote rationale. NOW (claims phase R1): prompted Boris for full 3-card claim + discard, Rosa for received pair + enactment/discard. Pair must match exactly. Waiting on both disclosures. If stories match: baseline trust, nobody cleared fully (liberal enact proves nothing per Otto's calibration). Watch next: president rotation, who nominates whom; Lena/Pavel blanket-Ja stance neutral so far; Nadia/Otto early Ja neutral. No suspects yet -- nothing has happened.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID: why-Rosa-over-cross-table question; loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing; disclosure contract; Ja vote rationale; t=7 demanded full 3-card claim from Boris + pair/enactment/discard from Rosa. OWED TO ME: Boris full 3-card draw+discard claim; Rosa received-pair + enactment/discard. Must match exactly. NEXT PRES: Player 1 Lena. Just asked her pre-commitment on nominee. If stories match: baseline trust only, nobody cleared (liberal enact proves nothing). No suspects yet.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID: why-Rosa-over-cross-table question; loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing; disclosure contract demand; Ja vote rationale; t=7 re-demanded claims; asked Lena pre-commit nominee pick. OWED TO ME: Boris full 3-card draw+discard claim; Rosa received-pair + enactment/discard. Must match exactly. NEW THIS TURN: flagged silent-on-contract players (Greta, Tomas, Pavel, Ines) as soft tells if they hedge later. NEXT PRES: Lena. Awaiting her nominee pre-commitment. If stories match: baseline trust only, nobody cleared (liberal enact proves nothing). No suspects yet.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID: why-Rosa-over-cross-table question; loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing; disclosure contract demand (Boris owes full 3-card claim+discard, Rosa owes pair+enact/discard); Ja vote rationale; t=7 re-demand; Lena pre-commit nominee ask; flagged silent-on-contract players (Greta/Tomas/Pavel/Ines). NEW THIS TURN: pointed out liberal enact clears nobody; asked silent four for their own suspect reads/nominee prefs under Lena presidency. NEXT PRES: Lena. Awaiting her nominee pre-commitment. If stories match: baseline trust only, nobody cleared. No suspects yet.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID: why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing; disclosure contract demand; Ja vote rationale; t=7 re-demand; Lena pre-commit nominee ask; flagged silent-on-contract players (Greta/Tomas/Pavel/Ines); liberal enact clears nobody; asked silent four for their suspect reads/nominee prefs under Lena presidency. THIS TURN: addressed Lena directly as incoming Pres to name nominee early; endorsed Rosa's public discard-pile count (2F burned, deck liberal-heavy). STORIES MATCH Boris+Rosa card-for-card -> baseline trust only, nobody cleared. No suspects yet. OPEN: Greta/Tomas/Pavel/Ines still owe contract compliance + their own reads. NEXT PRES: Lena.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID: why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing; disclosure contract demand; Ja vote rationale; t=7 re-demand; Lena pre-commit nominee ask; flagged Greta/Tomas/Pavel/Ines as silent-on-contract; liberal enact clears nobody; asked silent four for suspect reads + nominee prefs under Lena presidency; endorsed Rosa's 2F-burned count. THIS TURN: called out Tomas -- spoke twice (deck tilt) but never named a suspect nor confirmed contract compliance; neutral analysis is engagement-theater, not commitment. Backed Lena's demand that Pavel name a concrete Nein condition. STORIES MATCH Boris+Rosa card-for-card -> baseline trust only, nobody cleared. No suspects yet. OWE ME ANSWERS: Greta/Tomas/Pavel/Ines -- contract compliance + their own suspect reads/nominee prefs. Pavel also owes Lena a Nein condition. NEXT PRES: Lena. Watch her nominee pick vs what she told us.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID: why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing; disclosure contract demand; Ja vote rationale; re-demand t=7; Lena pre-commit nominee ask; flagged silent four (Greta/Tomas/Pavel/Ines); liberal enact clears nobody; endorsed Rosa's 2F-burned count. LAST TURN: called out Tomas (spoke twice, never named suspect nor confirmed contract); backed Lena's demand Pavel name concrete Nein condition. THIS TURN: Pavel DELIVERED -- his Nein line = nominee refusing up-front commit to announce enacted+discarded pair; also demanded Lena pre-commit to full 3-card draw/discard next round; put Tomas/Greta directly on spot. I amplified: pressed Greta/Tomas for yes/no NOW. NOTE on Pavel's line: weak alone -- fascist can 'commit' then lie about cards; real check is President-announced hand vs Chancellor claim consistency (Boris/Rosa matched card-for-card). Baseline trust only, nobody cleared. OWE ME ANSWERS: Greta/Tomas/Pavel/Ines -- contract compliance + own suspect reads + nominee prefs under Lena presidency. Ines still fully silent? NEXT PRES: Lena. Watch her nominee pick vs stated prefs.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID: why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing; disclosure contract demand; Ja vote rationale; re-demand; Lena pre-commit nominee ask; flagged silent four; liberal enact clears nobody; endorsed Rosa's 2F-burned count; called out Tomas twice; pressed Greta/Tomas yes/no; backed Lena's Pavel demand. THIS TURN: Greta ANSWERED -- yes to full 3-card disclosure, no tailoring, extended same offer to Pavel; then put same question to Otto. Boris piled on: demanded Otto + Tomas answer NOW. I pressed Otto/Tomas: sign or explain, plus name a refuse-to-seat pick under Lena presidency. Framed silence as data before vote. STATUS: contract signed = Rosa, Pavel(?), Lena(?), me, Greta. UNANSWERED on contract: Otto, Tomas. Ines still fully silent all window? Pavel's Nein-line = nominee refusing up-front commit to announce enacted+discarded pair. Weak alone -- fascist can commit then lie; real check = President-announced hand vs Chancellor claim consistency (Boris/Rosa matched card-for-card R1). OWE ME: Otto/Tomas contract + suspect read + refuse-seat pick; Ines anything at all; Pavel/Lena confirm they're bound too. NEXT PRES: Lena. Watch nominee pick vs her stated prefs; hold her to full-draw announcement.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID: why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing; disclosure contract demand; Ja vote rationale; re-demand; Lena pre-commit nominee ask; flagged silent four; liberal enact clears nobody; endorsed Rosa's 2F-burned count; called out Tomas twice; pressed Greta/Tomas yes/no; backed Lena's Pavel demand; pressed Otto/Tomas contract+suspect+refuse-seat. THIS TURN: Tomas ANSWERED -- yes to full 3-card disclosure, no tailoring. Greta also signed earlier. Contract status: signed = Rosa(?), Pavel(?), me, Greta, Tomas, Boris implied. HOLDOUT: Otto only. Ines still fully silent all window -- not even a yes/no on the contract. SAYING NOW: acknowledge Tomas's signature, point out Otto is sole remaining holdout, demand he sign or explain refusal before Lena's presidency turns; also call out Ines's total silence -- she owes at least a yes/no on the contract plus a suspect read. Pavel's Nein-line = nominee refusing up-front announce commit. Weak alone -- fascist can commit then lie; real check = President-announced hand vs Chancellor claim consistency (Boris/Rosa matched card-for-card R1). OWE ME: Otto contract + suspect + refuse-seat pick; Ines ANYTHING (contract yes/no, suspect read); Pavel/Lena explicit confirm they're bound too. NEXT PRES: Lena. Watch her nominee pick vs stated prefs; hold her to full-draw announcement when her government passes.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID: why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing; disclosure contract demand; Ja vote rationale; re-demand; Lena pre-commit nominee ask; flagged silent four; liberal enact clears nobody; endorsed Rosa's 2F-burned count; called out Tomas twice; pressed Greta/Tomas yes/no; backed Lena's Pavel demand; pressed Otto/Tomas contract+suspect+refuse-seat. THIS TURN: Tomas ANSWERED -- signed full 3-card disclosure, no tailoring. Greta signed earlier. Signed so far: me, Greta, Tomas, Boris implied, Rosa(?), Pavel(?). SOLE HOLDOUT: Otto -- demanded he sign or explain refusal before Lena's presidency. Ines STILL fully silent all window -- not even contract yes/no or a suspect read; called her out. Pavel's Nein-line = nominee refusing up-front announce commit. Weak alone -- fascist can commit then lie; real check = President-announced hand vs Chancellor claim consistency (Boris/Rosa matched card-for-card R1). OWE ME: Otto contract + suspect + refuse-seat pick; Ines ANYTHING (contract yes/no, suspect read); Pavel/Lena explicit confirm they're bound too. NEXT PRES: Lena, stated nominee = Otto. Watch her pick matches words; hold her to full-draw announcement when her government passes.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID: why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing; disclosure contract demand; Ja vote rationale; re-demand; Lena pre-commit nominee ask; flagged silent four; liberal enact clears nobody; endorsed Rosa's 2F-burned count; called out Tomas twice; pressed Greta/Tomas yes/no; backed Lena's Pavel demand; pressed Otto/Tomas contract+suspect+refuse-seat. THIS WINDOW: Tomas ANSWERED -- signed full 3-card disclosure, no tailoring. Greta signed earlier. Signed: me, Greta, Tomas (+Boris/Rosa implied). SOLE HOLDOUT: Otto -- owes contract signature or explanation of refusal. Ines STILL fully silent all window -- not even contract yes/no or suspect read; owed ANYTHING. Pavel's Nein-line = nominee refusing up-front announce-commit. Weak alone -- fascist can commit then lie; real check = President-announced hand vs Chancellor claim consistency (Boris/Rosa matched card-for-card R1). OWE ME: Otto contract+suspect+refuse-seat pick; Ines anything; Pavel/Lena explicit confirm bound too. NEXT PRES: Lena, stated nominee = Otto. Hold her to full-draw announcement when her government passes. Watch nominee matches her stated pick.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID: why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards + Boris-first sequencing; disclosure contract demand; Ja vote rationale; re-demand; Lena pre-commit nominee ask; flagged silent four; liberal enact clears nobody; endorsed Rosa's 2F-burned count; called out Tomas twice; pressed Greta/Tomas yes/no; backed Lena's Pavel demand; pressed Otto/Tomas contract+suspect+refuse-seat; NOW: conflicting-holdout-lists point (Boris/Lena=Pavel vs my tracking=Otto). THIS WINDOW: Tomas ANSWERED -- signed full 3-card disclosure, no tailoring. Greta signed earlier. Signed per my tracking: me, Greta, Tomas. Boris/Lena claim Nadia signed + Pavel sole holdout; my notes had OTTO unsigned -- need Otto to confirm on record which it is. If Otto signed, fine; if not, he's dodging behind the Pavel pile-on. Ines STILL fully silent all window -- not even contract yes/no or suspect read; owed ANYTHING. Pavel's Nein-line = nominee refusing up-front announce-commit. Weak alone -- fascist can commit then lie; real check = President-announced hand vs Chancellor claim consistency (Boris/Rosa matched card-for-card R1). Don't over-weight contract-signaling theater; watch actual government behavior. OWE ME: Otto explicit confirm signed-or-not; Ines anything; Pavel/Lena explicit confirm bound too. NEXT PRES: Lena, stated nominee = Otto. Hold her to full-draw announcement when her government passes. Watch nominee matches her stated pick.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID (don't repeat): why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards+Boris-first sequencing; disclosure contract demand; Ja vote rationale; flagged silent four; liberal-enact-clears-nobody; endorsed Rosa's 2F-burned count; called out Tomas twice; pressed Greta/Tomas yes/no; backed Lena's Pavel demand; pressed Otto/Tomas contract+suspect+refuse-seat; conflicting-holdout-lists point; NOW-SAYING: my own up-front commitment as nominee + Otto confirm + Ines silence. THIS WINDOW NEW: Tomas ANSWERED -- full 3-card disclosure signed, no tailoring. Greta signed earlier. My tracking of signers: me, Greta, Tomas. Boris/Lena claim Nadia signed too + Pavel sole holdout; my notes had OTTO unsigned -- Otto must confirm on record which is true. If unsigned while hiding behind Pavel pile-on = dodge. Ines STILL fully silent all window: no contract yes/no, no suspect read. Owes ANYTHING. Pavel's Nein-line = refusing up-front announce-commit; weak alone since fascist can commit then lie. Real check: President-announced hand vs Chancellor claim consistency (Boris/Rosa matched card-for-card R1). Don't over-weight signaling theater. MY COMMITMENT GIVEN THIS TURN: as Chancellor, first act after draw = announce exact 2 cards received before enacting; if I see 3F hand from Lena I say so publicly pre-veto-window; no tailoring, no retroactive story. Bind Lena symmetrically to announce her discard+pass. OWE ME: Otto explicit signed-or-not; Ines anything at all; Pavel/Lena explicit bound-confirm. NEXT PRES: Lena stated nominee = Otto; hold her to announced-draw when gov't passes; check nominee matches stated pick.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID (don't repeat): why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards+Boris-first sequencing; disclosure contract demand; Ja vote rationale; flagged silent four; liberal-enact-clears-nobody; endorsed 2F-burned count; called out Tomas; pressed Greta/Tomas yes/no; backed Lena's Pavel demand; conflicting-holdout-lists point; Otto/Tomas contract+suspect+refuse-seat; NOW-SAYING: Lena switched pick from Otto(t=122) to me -- why? + my up-front commitment as nominee. SIGNERS CONFIRMED: Greta(t=82), Tomas(t=114), Otto(t=101), Nadia(t=137), Pavel(t=35). All table signed. No holdouts left. INES: silent entire game -- zero contract statement, zero suspect read. Flagged twice already; next mention must be NEW angle or drop it. PAVEL: signed t=35 after pressure; his Nein-line = refusing commit-to-announce; weak alone (fascist can commit then lie). Real check: President-announced hand vs Chancellor claim consistency (Boris/Rosa matched card-for-card R1). MY COMMITMENT ON RECORD THIS TURN: announce exact pair received pre-enactment; no veto games; bound Lena symmetrically to full-draw disclosure. OWE ME: Lena -- why Otto->Marek switch. If unanswered by vote, note it. NEXT PRES: Lena holds presidency now; when gov't passes she MUST announce full 3-card draw + discard (her own commitment t=122). Check her announced discard vs what I received matches exactly.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal, no info. ALREADY SAID (don't repeat): why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards+Boris-first sequencing; disclosure contract demand; Ja vote rationale; flagged silent four; liberal-enact-clears-nobody; endorsed 2F-burned count; called out Tomas; pressed Greta/Tomas yes/no; backed Lena's Pavel demand; conflicting-holdout-lists point; Otto/Tomas contract+suspect+refuse-seat; asked Lena why Otto->Marek switch. THIS TURN: answered Boris YES -- I commit to announcing enacted+discarded pair on the spot, no tailoring. Accepted Lena's Otto->Marek explanation as plausible (Otto silent through 3 prompts). Asked Otto directly: silence through three prompts was your choice -- say now if you decline the seat. SIGNERS CONFIRMED: Greta(t=82), Tomas(t=114), Otto(t=101), Nadia(t=137), Pavel(t=35). All table signed. INES: silent entire game -- zero contract statement, zero suspect read. Flagged twice; drop unless NEW angle. PAVEL: signed t=35 after pressure; his Nein-line = refusing commit-to-announce; weak alone. Real check: President-announced hand vs Chancellor claim consistency (Boris/Rosa matched card-for-card R1). MY COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: announce exact pair received pre-enactment; no veto games; bound Lena symmetrically to full-draw disclosure. OWE ME: nobody outstanding now (Lena answered switch question t=3). NEXT PRES: when gov't passes, Lena MUST announce full 3-card draw + discard (her own commitment t=122). Check her announced discard vs what I received matches exactly.

R1 done: Boris(Pres)+Rosa(Chanc) -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal. ALREADY SAID (don't repeat): why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards+Boris-first; disclosure contract demand; Ja rationale; flagged silent four; liberal-enact-clears-nobody; 2F-burned count; Tomas callout; Greta/Tomas yes-no; backed Lena's Pavel demand; conflicting-holdout-lists; Otto/Tomas contract+suspect+refuse-seat; asked Lena why Otto->Marek switch; answered Boris YES-commit-to-announce-pair. THIS TURN: accepted nomination explicitly + signed contract in one breath for Otto. Vote call next. SIGNERS CONFIRMED: all table signed (Greta t=82, Tomas t=114, Otto t=101, Nadia t=137, Pavel t=35). INES: silent entire game, zero statements. Flagged twice; drop unless NEW angle. PAVEL: signed after pressure; Nein-line = refused commit-to-announce. Real check: Boris/Rosa R1 matched card-for-card. MY COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: announce exact pair received pre-enactment; no veto games; bound Lena to full-draw disclosure. OWE ME: nobody outstanding now. NEXT PRES: if gov't passes, Lena MUST announce full 3-card draw + discard (her commitment t=122). Check her announced discard vs what I received matches exactly. IF VOTE FAILS: no cards drawn, nothing to announce.

R1 done: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal. R2 NOMINEE: Lena(Pres)+Marek(Chanc). THIS TURN: accepted seat + signed contract + no-veto-games + demanded Lena's full-draw announcement BEFORE my pair statement (anti-tailoring). SIGNERS: all table confirmed (Greta t=82, Tomas t=114, Otto t=101, Nadia t=137, Pavel t=35). No holdouts left. MY ON-RECORD COMMITMENTS: exact pair announced pre-enactment; no veto games; Boris/Rosa R1 matched card-for-card (clean). CHECK AFTER VOTE PASSES: Lena's announced 3-card draw vs what she passes me must match exactly. If drift -> one of us lying, call it immediately. INES: silent entire game, zero statements. Only flag if NEW angle appears. PAVEL: signed after pressure; Nein-line = refusing commit-to-announce. Nothing new. OTTO: missed t=127 answer through silence, claims he'd have accepted. Mild flag only. IF VOTE FAILS: no cards drawn, nothing announced. ALREADY SAID (don't repeat): why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards+Boris-first; contract demand; Ja rationale data-round; silent-four callout; liberal-enact-clears-nobody; 2F-burned count; asked Lena why Otto->Marek switch (answered t=18).

R1 done: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal. R2 NOMINEE: Lena(Pres)+Marek(Chanc). DONE on-record: accepted seat + signed contract + no-veto-games + demanded Lena's full-draw announcement BEFORE my pair statement (anti-tailoring). Nadia's Ja locked (t=3 confirms all three delivered). SIGNERS: all table confirmed (Greta t=82, Tomas t=114, Otto t=101, Nadia t=137, Pavel t=35). No holdouts. MY COMMITMENTS: exact pair announced pre-enactment; no veto games. CHECK AFTER VOTE PASSES: Lena's announced 3-card draw vs what she passes me must match exactly. Drift -> call it immediately. INES: silent entire game, zero statements. Only flag if NEW angle appears. PAVEL: signed after pressure; Nein-line = refusing commit-to-announce. Nothing new. OTTO: missed t=127 answer via silence, claims he'd have accepted. Mild flag only. IF VOTE FAILS: no cards drawn, nothing announced. ALREADY SAID (don't repeat): why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards+Boris-first; contract demand; Ja rationale data-round; silent-four callout; liberal-enact-clears-nobody; 2F-burned count; asked Lena why Otto->Marek switch (answered t=18). NOW: nothing new to add -> silent.

R1 done: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal. R2 NOMINEE: Lena(Pres)+Marek(Chanc). On-record: accepted seat + contract + no-veto-games + Lena's full-draw announcement BEFORE my pair (anti-tailoring). Ja locked: Nadia, Ines(t=1), Greta(t=2), Pavel(t=3). All signers confirmed earlier. MY COMMITMENTS: exact pair announced pre-enactment; no veto games. CHECK AFTER VOTE PASSES: Lena's announced 3-card draw vs what she passes me must match exactly. Drift -> call it immediately. INES: silent all game. Flag only if new angle. OTTO: missed t=127 answer via silence, claims would've accepted. Mild flag only. IF VOTE FAILS: no cards drawn, nothing announced. ALREADY SAID (don't repeat): why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards+Boris-first; contract demand; Ja rationale data-round; silent-four callout; liberal-enact-clears-nobody; 2F-burned count; asked Lena Otto->Marek switch (answered t=18). NOW: nothing new -> silent.

R1 done: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal. R2 NOMINEE: Lena(Pres)+Marek(Chanc). On-record: accepted seat + contract + no-veto-games + Lena's full-draw announcement BEFORE my pair (anti-tailoring). Ja locked: Nadia, Ines(t=1), Greta(t=2), Pavel(t=3). MY COMMITMENTS: exact pair announced pre-enactment; no veto games. CHECK AFTER VOTE PASSES: Lena's announced 3-card draw vs what she passes me must match exactly. Drift -> call it immediately. INES: silent all game. Flag only if new angle. OTTO: missed t=127 answer via silence, claims would've accepted. Mild flag only. Lena pressing him to lock Ja -- watch if he flips after my acceptance (that'd be a real tell, not just silence). IF VOTE FAILS: no cards drawn, nothing announced. ALREADY SAID (don't repeat): why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards+Boris-first; contract demand; Ja rationale data-round; silent-four callout; liberal-enact-clears-nobody; 2F-burned count; asked Lena Otto->Marek switch (answered t=18); accepted seat+contract+no-veto-games. NOW: nothing new -> silent.

R1 done: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal. R2 NOMINEE: Lena(Pres)+Marek(Chanc). On-record: accepted seat + contract + no-veto-games + Lena full-draw announce BEFORE my pair (anti-tailoring). Ja locked: Nadia, Ines(t=1), Greta(t=2), Pavel(t=3). MY COMMITMENTS: exact pair announced pre-enactment; no veto games. CHECK AFTER VOTE PASSES: Lena's announced 3-card draw vs what she passes me must match exactly. Drift -> call immediately. INES: silent all game, now echoing Lena's sequencing -- fine, no new angle. OTTO: silence through 3 prompts (Lena/Nadia/Ines), accepted only after nomination moved to me. Greta+Boris both pressing him live. Watch his vote flip timing -- if he flips Ja only after my acceptance, real tell. IF VOTE FAILS: no cards drawn, nothing announced. ALREADY SAID (don't repeat): why-Rosa-over-cross-table; loud-discards+Boris-first; contract demand; Ja rationale data-round; silent-four callout; liberal-enact-clears-nobody; 2F-burned count; asked Lena Otto->Marek switch (answered t=18); accepted seat+contract+no-veto-games. NOW: nothing new -> silent.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F), tracker 0/3. Marek liberal. R2 NOMINEE: Lena(Pres)+Marek(Chanc). On-record: accepted seat, signed contract, no-veto-games, Lena announces full 3-card draw BEFORE my pair. Jas locked: Nadia, Ines, Greta, Pavel, Otto(t=121). MY COMMITMENTS: exact received pair + discard announced pre-enactment; no veto games. AFTER PASS: verify Lena's announced 3-card draw vs what she passes me matches EXACTLY; drift -> call immediately, both suspect. OTTO: silent through 3 prompts (Lena t=127/Nadia t=143/Ines), accepted only after nomination moved to me ('I'd have accepted' unverifiable - Greta t=96 called it, Boris pressed t=103, Otto excuse 'sloppiness' t=109). Watch his future behavior; weak tell not proof. INES: quiet all game, signed contract only when Lena pressured pre-vote. Note as low-signal. DECK: 2 Fascists burned (Boris+F each), 14 live cards -> Liberal-heavy; a Fascist policy next = strong intent signal. IF VOTE FAILS: no cards drawn, nothing announced. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; liberal-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q (answered t=18); seat acceptance+signature.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena(Pres)+Marek(Chanc) PASSED 10-0. MY ENACTMENT R2: received L-F pair, enacted LIBERAL, discarded Fascist (announced on record). Board now 2L/0F, discard pile = 3 Fascists burned total (Boris 1 + Rosa 1 + me 1). MY COMMITMENTS FULFILLED: exact pair+discard announced pre-enactment; no veto games honored. VERIFY: Lena must announce full 3-card draw BEFORE/with my pair; her hand must contain my exact L-F pair or someone lied. OTTO SUSPECT (weak): silent through 3 nomination prompts (Lena t=127/Nadia t=143/Ines t=35 R2), accepted only after pick moved to me ('I'd have accepted' unverifiable; Greta t=96 called it; Boris pressed t=103; excuse 'sloppiness' t=109). Watch future behavior. INES: quiet all game, signed only under Lena pre-vote pressure. Low-signal. PAVEL: contract holdout until R2 t=35, then signed. Closed book for now. DECK after my discard: 3 Fascists burned, ~13 live cards -> very Liberal-heavy; next Fascist policy = strong intent signal against that government. OPEN: none owed to me currently. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature; enacted-pair announcement.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena(Pres)+Marek(Chanc) PASSED 10-0. MY ENACTMENT R2: received L-F pair, enacted LIBERAL, discarded Fascist (announced on record). Board 2L/0F, discard pile = 3 Fascists burned total (Boris 1 + Rosa 1 + me 1). PENDING ASK: Lena owes public confirmation her R2 3-card draw contained my exact L-F pair -- if she can't match it, someone in that government lied. Asked this window; awaiting answer. OTTO SUSPECT (weak): silent through 3 nomination prompts (Lena/Nadia/Ines), accepted only after pick moved to me; Greta t=96 + Boris t=103 pressed him; excuse 'sloppiness' t=109. Watch future behavior. INES: quiet all game, signed only under pre-vote pressure. Low-signal. PAVEL: contract holdout until R2 t=35, then signed. Closed book. DECK after my discard: 3 Fascists burned, ~13 live cards -> very Liberal-heavy; next Fascist policy = strong intent signal against that government. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature; enacted-pair announcement.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena(Pres)+Marek(Chanc) PASSED 10-0. MY ENACTMENT R2: received L-F pair from Lena, enacted LIBERAL, discarded Fascist. Lena t=1 disclosed her draw F-L-F, discarded 1F, passed L-F -- MATCHES my account exactly. Both governments' stories now fully consistent. Pending ask RESOLVED by Lena's disclosure. Board 2L/0F. Discard pile = 3 Fascists burned total (Boris 1 + Rosa 1 + my 1). Deck ~11 live cards, Liberal-heavy -> next Fascist policy = strong intent signal against that government. OTTO SUSPECT (weak): silent through 3 nomination prompts (Lena/Nadia/Ines), accepted only after pick moved to me; excuse 'sloppiness' t=109 after Greta/Boris pressed. Watch future behavior. INES: quiet all game, signed only under pre-vote pressure. Low-signal. PAVEL: contract holdout until R2 t=35 then signed. Closed book. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature; enacted-pair announcement.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena(Pres)+Marek(me, Chanc) PASSED 10-0 -> LIBERAL (2L/0F). MY DISCLOSURE GIVEN THIS TURN: received L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena's t=6 hand (F-L-F, discarded 1F). Both governments' stories fully consistent. Board 2L/0F. Discard pile = 3 Fascists burned (Boris 1, Rosa 1, me 1). Deck ~11 live cards, heavily Liberal -- next Fascist policy = strong intent signal against that gov. OTTO SUSPECT (weak): silent through 3 nomination prompts (t=127, Nadia/Ines re-asks), accepted only after pick moved to me; excuse 'sloppiness' t=109 under Greta/Boris pressure. Watch him. INES: quiet all game, signed contract only under pre-vote pressure (t=89). Low-signal. PAVEL: holdout until R2 t=35, then signed. Closed book. NEXT ROUND PRESIDENCY ROTATES PAST LENA -- term-limited chancellors: me + Lena barred from chancellor slot next. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing demand; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; my R2 disclosure (just given).

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena(Pres)+Marek(me,Chanc) PASSED 10-0 -> LIBERAL (2L/0F). MY DISCLOSURE GIVEN t=1 this window: received L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena's hand. Boris flagged sequencing (disclosure landed post-enactment); I acknowledged + committed to announce-before-enact going forward. Board 2L/0F. Discards = 3 Fascists burned (Boris, Rosa, me each 1). Deck ~11 live, Liberal-heavy -> any F policy next = intent signal vs that gov. OTTO SUSPECT (weak): silent through 3 nomination prompts, accepted only after pick moved to me; 'sloppiness' excuse under pressure. Watch. INES: quiet, signed contract only under pre-vote pressure. Low-signal. PAVEL: holdout until R2, then signed. NEXT ROUND: Presidency -> Rosa (seat 2). Term limits bar ME + LENA from chancellor slot. Asked Rosa to precommit chancellor pick + reasoning BEFORE cards drawn (Greta also asked). ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing demand; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; sequencing acknowledgment (just now).

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena(Pres)+Marek(me,Chanc) PASSED 10-0 -> LIBERAL (2L/0F). MY DISCLOSURE GIVEN t=1: got L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena's claim. Boris flagged post-enactment sequencing; I acknowledged + committed announce-before-enact going forward. Board 2L/0F. Known F discards: mine + Lena's = 2. Boris now CLAIMS 4 F burned (implies R1 gov also burned 2F -- unverified unless Boris/Rosa disclose). If true: only 2 F left in 11 live cards -> lone F enactment soon weak signal. NOTE: Boris's '4 burned' is a claim, not checked fact -- press Boris/Rosa to disclose R1 hands to verify. OTTO SUSPECT (weak): silent through 3 nomination prompts, accepted only after pick moved to me; 'sloppiness' excuse under pressure. Boris pressing him re veto commitment -- awaiting answer. INES: quiet, signed contract only under pre-vote pressure. Low-signal. PAVEL: holdout until R2, then signed. NEXT ROUND: Presidency -> Rosa (seat 2). Term limits bar ME+LENA from chancellor slot. Asked Rosa precommit chancellor pick BEFORE draw (Greta too); Boris also demanded full-draw announcement. Awaiting Rosa's answer. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing demand; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; sequencing acknowledgment; Rosa precommit request.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena(Pres)+Marek(me,Chanc) PASSED 10-0 -> LIBERAL (2L/0F). MY DISCLOSURE GIVEN t=1: got L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena's claim. Board 2L/0F. Known F discards: mine + Lena's = 2. BORIS CLAIMS 4 F burned total -> implies R1 gov burned 2F. UNVERIFIED. Open Q: Boris must disclose his R1 three-card draw; Rosa her R1 discard. If both check out: only 2 F left in 11 live cards -> next lone F enactment is weak signal, not proof. ROSA ANSWERED precommit: will announce full draw before Chancellor acts, picks NADIA as chancellor. Acceptable pick per my request (clean record, never held seat). Term limits next round bar ME+LENA from chancellor slot. OTTO: silent through 3 nomination prompts, answered Boris only after pressure ('yes would've accepted, no veto'). Weak suspect on passivity alone, not evidence. Keep watching his vote on Lena-Marek gov (he was holdout? no--Pavel was late signer; Otto signed?). INES quiet; PAVEL signed only at R2. Low signal both. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing demand; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; sequencing acknowledgment; Rosa precommit request. THIS TURN SAID: accepted Rosa's commitments + Nadia pick; pressed Boris for R1 draw disclosure to verify 4-burned claim.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena(Pres)+Marek(me,Chanc) PASSED 10-0 -> LIBERAL (2L/0F). MY DISCLOSURE GIVEN t=1: got L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena's claim. Board 2L/0F. Known F discards: mine + Lena's = 2. BORIS CLAIMS 4 F burned total -> implies R1 gov burned 2F. UNVERIFIED. BORIS STILL OWES: full R1 three-card draw disclosure (pressed him earlier, no answer yet). Rosa owes her R1 discard detail too. If both check out: only 2 F left in 11 live cards -> next lone F enactment = weak signal, not proof. ROSA CLOSED precommit: will announce full draw before Chancellor acts; picks NADIA as chancellor. Acceptable pick per my request (clean record). Term limits next round bar ME+LENA from chancellor slot. OTTO: silent through 3 nomination prompts, answered Boris only under pressure ('yes would've accepted, no veto'). Weak suspect, passivity only. INES quiet; PAVEL signed only at R2 vote. Low signal. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing demand; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; sequencing acknowledgment; Rosa precommit request; Boris R1-draw press. THIS TURN: silent -- nothing new to add; waiting on Boris's R1 draw disclosure.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena(Pres)+Marek(me,Chanc) PASSED 10-0 -> LIBERAL (2L/0F). MY DISCLOSURE GIVEN t=1: got L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena's claim. Board 2L/0F. Known F discards: mine + Lena's = 2. BORIS CLAIMS 4 F burned total -> implies R1 gov burned 2F. UNVERIFIED. BORIS STILL OWES: full R1 three-card draw disclosure (pressed earlier, no answer yet). Rosa owes her R1 discard detail too. If both check out: only 2 F left in 11 live cards -> next lone F enactment = weak signal, not proof. ROSA CLOSED precommit: announce full draw before Chancellor acts; picks NADIA as chancellor. Nadia accepted, will announce received pair + discard. Acceptable per my request (clean record). Term limits next round bar ME+LENA from chancellor slot. OTTO: silent through 3 nomination prompts, answered Boris only under pressure ('yes would've accepted, no veto'). Weak suspect, passivity only. INES quiet; PAVEL signed only at R2 vote. Low signal. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing demand; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; sequencing acknowledgment; Rosa precommit request; Boris R1-draw press. THIS TURN: silent again -- Nadia/Rosa exchange adds nothing suspicious; still waiting on Boris's R1 draw disclosure.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena(Pres)+Marek(me,Chanc) PASSED 10-0 -> LIBERAL (2L/0F). MY DISCLOSURE GIVEN t=1: got L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena's claim. Board 2L/0F. Known F discards: mine + Lena's = 2. BORIS CLAIMS 4 F burned total -> implies R1 gov burned 2F. UNVERIFIED. BORIS STILL OWES: full R1 three-card draw disclosure (pressed earlier, no answer yet). Rosa owes her R1 discard detail too. If both check out: only 2 F left in 11 live cards -> next lone F enactment = weak signal, not proof. OTTO'S PRE-ENACT VERIFICATION FIX (t=1-3): Nadia announces received pair BEFORE enacting; Rosa holds pass until room confirms match. Sound, consistent with my enacted-pair-announcement request -- no objection, no need to restate. ROSA CLOSED precommit: announce full draw before Chancellor acts; picks NADIA as chancellor. Nadia accepted. Term limits next round bar ME+LENA from chancellor slot. OTTO: silent through 3 nomination prompts, answered Boris only under pressure ('yes would've accepted, no veto'). Weak suspect, passivity only. INES quiet; PAVEL signed only at R2 vote. Low signal. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing demand; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; sequencing acknowledgment; Rosa precommit request; Boris R1-draw press. THIS TURN: silent -- Otto's protocol is fine, nothing new to add; still waiting on Boris's R1 draw disclosure.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena(Pres)+Marek(me,Chanc) PASSED 10-0 -> LIBERAL (2L/0F). MY DISCLOSURE GIVEN t=1: got L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena's claim. Board 2L/0F. Known F discards: mine + Lena's = 2. BORIS CLAIMS 4 F burned total -> implies R1 gov burned 2F. UNVERIFIED. BORIS STILL OWES: full R1 three-card draw disclosure (pressed earlier, no answer yet). Rosa owes her R1 discard detail too. If both check out: only 2 F left in 11 live cards -> next lone F enactment = weak signal, not proof. OTTO'S PRE-ENACT VERIFICATION FIX (t=1-3): Nadia announces received pair BEFORE enacting; Rosa holds pass until room confirms match. Sound, consistent with my enacted-pair-announcement request -- no objection. ROSA CLOSED precommit: announce full draw before Chancellor acts; picks NADIA as chancellor. Nadia accepted. Term limits next round bar ME+LENA from chancellor slot. OTTO: silent through 3 nomination prompts, answered Boris only under pressure ('yes would've accepted, no veto'). Weak suspect, passivity only. INES quiet; PAVEL signed only at R2 vote. Low signal. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing demand; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; sequencing acknowledgment; Rosa precommit request; Boris R1-draw press. THIS TURN: silent -- Otto's protocol fine, nothing new; still waiting on Boris R1 draw disclosure + Rosa R1 discard detail.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena(Pres)+Marek(me,Chanc) PASSED 10-0 -> LIBERAL (2L/0F). MY DISCLOSURE GIVEN t=1: got L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena's claim. Board 2L/0F. Known F discards: mine + Lena's = 2. BORIS CLAIMS 4 F burned total -> implies R1 gov burned 2F. UNVERIFIED. BORIS STILL OWES: full R1 three-card draw disclosure (pressed earlier, no answer). Rosa owes her R1 discard detail too. If both check out: only 2 F left in 11 live cards -> next lone F enactment = weak signal, not proof. OTTO'S PRE-ENACT VERIFICATION FIX (t=1-3): Nadia announces received pair BEFORE enacting; Rosa holds pass until room confirms match. Sound, consistent with my enacted-pair-announcement request -- no objection. ROSA CLOSED precommit: announce full draw before Chancellor acts; picks NADIA as chancellor. Nadia accepted. Term limits next round bar ME+LENA from chancellor slot. OTTO: silent through 3 nomination prompts, answered Boris only under pressure ('yes would've accepted, no veto'). Weak suspect, passivity only. INES quiet; PAVEL signed only at R2 vote. Low signal. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing demand; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; sequencing acknowledgment; Rosa precommit request; Boris R1-draw press. THIS TURN: silent -- nothing new; protocol locked, waiting on Boris R1 draw disclosure + Rosa R1 discard detail. Next round I'm term-limited from chancellor slot.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena(Pres)+Marek(me,Chanc) PASSED 10-0 -> LIBERAL (2L/0F). MY DISCLOSURE GIVEN t=1: got L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena's claim. Board 2L/0F. Known F discards: mine + Lena's = 2. BORIS CLAIMS 4 F burned total -> implies R1 gov burned 2F. UNVERIFIED. BORIS STILL OWES: full R1 three-card draw disclosure (pressed earlier, no answer). Rosa owes her R1 discard detail too. If both check out: only 2 F left in 11 live cards -> next lone F enactment = weak signal, not proof. OTTO'S PRE-ENACT VERIFICATION FIX (t=1-3): Nadia announces received pair BEFORE enacting; Rosa holds pass until room confirms match. Sound -- no objection. ROSA CLOSED precommit: announce full draw before Chancellor acts; picks NADIA as chancellor. Nadia accepted. Term limits next round bar ME+LENA from chancellor slot. OTTO: silent through 3 nomination prompts, answered Boris only under pressure ('yes would've accepted, no veto'). Weak suspect, passivity only. INES quiet; PAVEL signed only at R2 vote. Low signal. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing demand; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; sequencing acknowledgment; Rosa precommit request; Boris R1-draw press. THIS TURN: silent again -- protocol locked, waiting on Boris R1 draw disclosure + Rosa R1 discard detail before Rosa/Nadia enact. Next round I'm term-limited from chancellor slot.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena(Pres)+Marek(me,Chanc) PASSED 10-0 -> LIBERAL (2L/0F). MY DISCLOSURE GIVEN t=1: got L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena's claim. Board 2L/0F. Known F discards: mine + Lena's = 2. BORIS CLAIMS 4 F burned total -> implies R1 gov burned 2F. UNVERIFIED. BORIS STILL OWES: full R1 three-card draw disclosure (pressed earlier, no answer). Rosa owes R1 discard detail too. If both check out: only 2 F left in 11 live cards -> next lone F enactment = weak signal. OTTO'S PRE-ENACT VERIFICATION FIX (t=1-3): Nadia announces received pair BEFORE enacting; Rosa holds pass until room confirms match. Sound -- no objection. ROSA CLOSED precommit: announce full draw before Chancellor acts; picks NADIA as chancellor. Nadia accepted. Term limits next round bar ME+LENA from chancellor slot. OTTO: silent through 3 nomination prompts, answered Boris only under pressure ('yes would've accepted, no veto'). Weak suspect, passivity only. INES quiet; PAVEL signed only at R2 vote. Low signal. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; sequencing ack; Rosa precommit request; Boris R1-draw press. NADIA now demanding from ROSA: announced draw/discard is FINAL once spoken -- good, supports my contract point; no need for me to restate it. Waiting on Boris R1 disclosure + Rosa R1 detail before enact. NEXT ROUND: term-limited from chancellor slot; watch who Rosa/Lena push then.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena(Pres)+Marek(me,Chanc) PASSED 10-0 -> LIBERAL (2L/0F). MY DISCLOSURE GIVEN t=1: got L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena's claim. Board 2L/0F. Known F discards: mine + Lena's = 2. BORIS CLAIMS 4 F burned total -> implies R1 gov burned 2F. UNVERIFIED. BORIS STILL OWES: full R1 three-card draw disclosure (pressed earlier, no answer). Rosa owes R1 discard detail too. If both check out: only 2 F left in 11 live cards -> next lone F enactment = weak signal. OTTO'S PRE-ENACT VERIFICATION FIX (t=1-3): Nadia announces received pair BEFORE enacting; Rosa holds pass until room confirms match. Sound -- no objection. ROSA CLOSED precommit t~98: draw+discard FINAL once spoken; picks NADIA as chancellor. Nadia accepted. Term limits next round bar ME+LENA from chancellor slot. OTTO: silent through 3 nomination prompts, answered Boris only under pressure ('yes would've accepted, no veto'). Weak suspect, passivity only. INES quiet; PAVEL signed only at R2 vote. Low signal. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; sequencing ack; Rosa precommit request; Boris R1-draw press. NADIA's finality condition met by Rosa's closure -- contract fully closed now. Vote should proceed Ja on p2/p5. NEXT ROUND: term-limited from chancellor slot; watch who Rosa/Lena push then.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena(Pres)+Marek(me) PASSED 10-0 -> LIBERAL (2L/0F). MY DISCLOSURE GIVEN t=20 R2: got L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena's claim exactly. Board 2L/0F. Known F discards: mine + Lena's = 2. BORIS claims 4 F burned -> implies R1 gov burned 2F. UNVERIFIED. BORIS OWES: full R1 three-card draw disclosure (pressed, no answer). Rosa owes R1 discard detail too. If both check out: only 2 F left in 11 live cards -> lone F enactment = weak signal (Boris/Nadia both said ~half of draws contain a F). VOTED JA on Rosa(Pres)-Nadia(Chanc): fully contracted gov -- no-veto pledge, verify-then-enact, mismatch rule signed by BOTH sides, Rosa's draw+discard FINAL once spoken. All conditions I tracked are closed; Nein would be obstruction at 0/3 tracker. ROSA'S COMMITMENTS ON RECORD: announce full draw+discard BEFORE passing (Otto pinned sequencing); pick never-seated chancellor (picked Nadia). TERM LIMITS NEXT ROUND: me + Lena barred from chancellor slot. Watch who Rosa/Lena push then. SUSPECTS: OTTO weak -- silent through 3 nomination prompts in R2, answered Boris only under pressure ('would've accepted, no veto'); passivity only, no card evidence. INES quiet until signing contract late in R2. PAVEL signed holdout contract only at R2 vote pressure. Low signal on all. BORIS: enforcing disclosure hard, but still hasn't disclosed his own R1 draw -- asymmetry worth pressing again if he pushes scrutiny next round. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; sequencing ack; Rosa precommit request; Boris R1-draw press. NEXT ROUND: term-limited from chancellor slot; watch nominations for coverage of Greta/Otto/Pavel/Tomas/Ines.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena+Marek(me) PASSED 10-0 -> LIBERAL (2L/0F). MY DISCLOSURE GIVEN t=20 R2: got L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena's claim exactly. R3: Rosa(Pres)+Nadia(Chanc) -> FASCIST enacted. Board 2L/1F, tracker 0/3. NOW OWED: Rosa's full 3-card draw + discard; Nadia's pair + discard. Rosa precommitted to announce draw+discard BEFORE passing (Otto pinned sequencing) -- hold her to it. If Rosa drew no F, blame shifts to Nadia or deck luck; if she drew an F and kept one, she's suspect #1. BORIS claims 4 F burned total -> implies R1 gov burned 2F. UNVERIFIED. BORIS OWES: full R1 three-card disclosure (pressed, no answer). Rosa owes R1 discard detail too. If Boris's count holds: only ~2 F left live -> lone F enactment weak signal, but still must verify R3 hands. VOTED JA on Rosa-Nadia gov: contracted (no-veto pledge, verify-then-enact, mismatch rule signed by both). Conditions closed; Nein = obstruction at 0/3. TERM LIMITS NEXT ROUND: me + Lena barred from chancellor. Watch who Rosa/Lena push for coverage of Greta/Otto/Pavel/Tomas/Ines. SUSPECTS: OTTO weak -- silent through 3 nomination prompts R2, answered only under pressure ('would've accepted, no veto'). Passivity only, no card evidence. INES quiet until late R2 contract signing. PAVEL signed holdout contract at vote pressure. Low signal all three. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+signature+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; sequencing ack; Rosa precommit request; Boris R1-draw press. NEXT: get R3 disclosures from Rosa+Nadia; cross-check vs Boris's 4-F-burned claim; then watch nomination pattern.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena+Marek(me) PASSED -> LIBERAL (2L/0F). MY DISCLOSURE GIVEN t=20 R2: got L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena's claim. R3: Rosa+Nadia -> FASCIST enacted. Board 2L/1F, tracker 0/3. NOW OWED: Rosa full 3-card draw+discard; Nadia pair+discard. Both precommitted to disclose BEFORE passing -- hold to sequencing. NEW POINT MADE t~100: Boris claims 4F burned total; my R2 accounts for 1F -> 3F left across R1+R3 burns. If Rosa's R3 discard was F, her draw held 2F+ (no luck excuse). If her discard was L, Boris's count breaks -- he must reconcile. One of the two stories fails arithmetically. BORIS OWES: full R1 three-card disclosure (pressed repeatedly, silent). VOTED JA on Rosa-Nadia: contract conditions closed; Nein = obstruction at 0/3. TERM LIMITS NEXT ROUND: me + Lena barred as chancellor. Watch Rosa/Lena nominations for coverage of Greta/Otto/Pavel/Tomas/Ines. SUSPECTS: OTTO weak-passive only; INES quiet till late R2; PAVEL signed holdout under pressure. No card evidence on any. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; Rosa precommit request; Boris R1-draw press; burn-count arithmetic (t~100). NEXT: wait for Rosa/Nadia disclosures; check against burn-count; then nomination pattern.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL (1L/0F). R2: Lena+Marek(me) PASSED -> LIBERAL (2L/0F). MY R2 DISCLOSURE GIVEN: L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena. R3: Rosa+Nadia -> FASCIST enacted. Board 2L/1F, tracker 0/3. BOTH SILENT on owed disclosures despite precommit + Otto's timing pin. Otto's deck-math pin: no 3F draw available in R3 => Nadia held a Liberal she chose not to enact. No luck excuse exists. MY BURN-COUNT PIN (~t100): Boris claims 4F burned total; my R2 accounts 1F => 3F across R1+R3 burns. If Rosa's R3 discard was F, her draw held 2F+ (no excuse). If discard was L, Boris's count breaks. One story fails arithmetically. BORIS OWES: full R1 three-card disclosure -- pressed repeatedly, still silent. NEW THIS TURN: announced personal sanction -- Nein on ANY future gov containing Rosa or Nadia until both give full hand+discard. Asked others to join so it bites. VOTED JA on Rosa-Nadia: conditions closed at the time; their post-win silence is the breach, not my vote. TERM LIMITS NEXT ROUND: me + Lena barred as chancellor. Watch Rosa/Lena nominations for coverage of Greta/Otto/Pavel/Tomas/Ines. SUSPECTS: OTTO weak-passive only; INES quiet till late R2; PAVEL signed holdout under pressure. No card evidence on any. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; Rosa precommit request; Boris R1 press; burn-count math; Otto's no-3F-draw pin (endorsed only). NEXT: if disclosures land, check against burn-count; then nomination-pattern watch.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL. R2: Lena+Marek(me) PASSED -> LIBERAL. MY R2 DISCLOSURE GIVEN: L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena. R3: Rosa+Nadia -> FASCIST. Board 2L/1F, tracker 0/3. ROSA STILL SILENT on owed 3-card disclosure despite precommit request + Otto/Ines pins. DECK MATH (Otto's pin, endorsed): no 3F draw possible R3 => Nadia held a Liberal => no luck excuse for enactment pair. MY CLEAN-STANDARD STATED THIS TURN: Rosa clean iff drew F-F-L and burned the L; any other story = guilt. Ines asked Greta/Lena same Q -- unanswered yet. BORIS OWES: full R1 three-card disclosure -- pressed repeatedly, silent. BURN-COUNT PIN (made ~t100): Boris claims 4F burned total; my R2 = 1F; R1+R3 discards are 2 cards max => his count arithmetically shaky. Check his R1 disclosure against this when it lands. SANCTION ACTIVE: I vote Nein on any future gov containing Rosa or Nadia until full hand+disclosure given. Asked others to join. VOTED JA on Rosa-Nadia: conditions closed at time; post-win silence is breach. TERM LIMITS NEXT ROUND: me + Lena barred as chancellor. Watch Rosa/Lena nominations for coverage of Greta/Otto/Pavel/Tomas/Ines. SUSPECTS: OTTO weak-passive; INES quiet till late R2; PAVEL signed holdout under pressure. No card evidence. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; Rosa precommit request; Boris R1 press; burn-count math; Otto no-3F-draw pin; Ines F-F-lock endorsement. NEXT: when Rosa/Boris disclosures land, check against burn-count; then nomination-pattern watch.

R1: Boris+Rosa -> LIBERAL. R2: Lena+Marek(me) PASSED -> LIBERAL. MY R2 DISCLOSURE GIVEN: L-F from Lena, enacted L, discarded F -- matches Lena. R3: Rosa+Nadia -> FASCIST. Board 2L/1F, tracker 0/3. ROSA STILL SILENT on owed 3-card disclosure. DECK MATH (Otto pin): no 3F draw possible R3 => Nadia held a Liberal => no luck excuse for pair. NEW THIS TURN: endorsed Boris's correction of Nadia's 'one hand' claim. Two live stories: (a) Rosa drew F-F-L, burned L, passed F-F => Rosa guilty, Nadia forced; (b) Rosa drew F-F-L, burned F, passed F-L => Nadia CHOSE Fascist over Liberal => Nadia guilty. Asymmetry: Nadia's story removes her agency (self-serving); Boris's gives her a choice. Only Rosa's full disclosure separates them. Pressed Nadia: state publicly what you enact given F-L. BORIS OWES: full R1 3-card disclosure -- pressed repeatedly, silent. BURN-COUNT PIN (~t100): Boris claims 4F burned total; my R2=1F; R1+R3 discards max 2 => arithmetic shaky. Check his R1 disclosure against this when it lands. MY CLEAN-STANDARD: Rosa clean iff drew F-F-L and burned the L; any other story = guilt (note: Boris branch has Rosa burning F => still guilty under my standard). SANCTION ACTIVE: vote Nein on any future gov w/ Rosa or Nadia until full hand+disclosure given. Asked others to join. TERM LIMITS NEXT ROUND: me + Lena barred as chancellor. Watch Rosa/Lena nominations for coverage of Greta/Otto/Pavel/Tomas/Ines. SUSPECTS: OTTO weak-passive; INES quiet till late R2; PAVEL signed holdout under pressure. No card evidence. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa-over-cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; data-round Ja; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+no-veto precommit; enacted-pair announcement; R2 disclosure; Rosa precommit request; Boris R1 press; burn-count math; Otto no-3F-draw pin; Ines F-F-lock endorsement. NEXT: when Rosa/Boris disclosures land, check vs burn-count; then nomination-pattern watch.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F disclosure matches Lena. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC. Board 2L/1F. Deck math: no 3F draw possible R3 => Rosa held >=1 Lib. Binary: Rosa burned Lib => guilty, OR burned F => passed F-L => Nadia chose F over Lib => guilty. One of pair guilty regardless. KEY NEW POINT MADE t~now: Nadia's F-F receipt story CONVICTS Rosa (Rosa burned only Lib) -- not mutual clearance; and Nadia's disclosure itself came post-enactment = same protocol breach. ROSA OWES: (a) full R3 three-card + discard disclosure (her 'already locked four words' reference words never said in transcript -- called out); (b) investigation target+result, fired on her watch (Tomas raised). NADIA OWES: why post-enactment disclosure despite signed verify-then-enact. BORIS OWES: R1 full 3-card disclosure, pressed, silent; his burn-count claim shaky vs my count. SANCTION ACTIVE: Nein on any government containing Rosa or Nadia until full hands disclosed. NEXT ROUND: Ines President by rotation; me+Lena term-limited as chancellor. Watch Ines nominee pick for Rosa/Nadia-adjacent cover. SUSPECTS: Otto weak-passive, late answers; Ines quiet till late R2 then defends F-F-lock framing; Pavel holdout till pressured; Tomas active accuser -- no card evidence on any. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+no-veto precommit; R2 disclosure; Boris R1 press; burn-count math; Otto no-3F-draw pin; Ines F-F-lock endorsement; endorsed Boris correction of Nadia one-hand claim; Rosa ghost-disclosure callout; Pavel-trap analysis; Nadia-convicts-Rosa framing (this turn). NEXT: Rosa dual answer resolves culprit; then scrutinize Ines nomination choice.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F disclosure matches Lena. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC. Board 2L/1F. Deck math: no 3F draw possible R3 => Rosa held >=1 Lib. Binary: Rosa burned Lib => guilty, OR burned F => passed F-L => Nadia chose F over Lib => guilty. One of pair guilty regardless. Nadia's F-F receipt story CONVICTS Rosa (Rosa burned only Lib) -- not mutual clearance; Nadia disclosure post-enactment = protocol breach. ROSA OWES: (a) full R3 three-card + discard disclosure ('locked four words' ghost-reference called out); (b) investigation target+result -- NEW ASK THIS TURN: pre-commit target BEFORE drawing cards, public record, no retrofitting; remind table a Fascist prez can fabricate results, so weigh claim vs outcomes. NADIA OWES: why post-enactment disclosure despite signed verify-then-enact. BORIS OWES: R1 full 3-card disclosure, pressed, silent; burn-count claim shaky vs my count. SANCTION ACTIVE: Nein on any government containing Rosa or Nadia until full hands disclosed. NEXT ROUND: Ines President by rotation; me+Lena term-limited chancellor. Watch Ines nominee pick for Rosa/Nadia-adjacent cover. SUSPECTS: Otto weak-passive late answers; Ines quiet till late R2 then defends F-F-lock framing; Pavel holdout till pressured; Tomas active accuser -- no card evidence on any. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+no-veto precommit; R2 disclosure; Boris R1 press; burn-count math; Otto no-3F-draw pin; Ines F-F-lock endorsement; endorsed Boris correction of Nadia one-hand claim; Rosa ghost-disclosure callout; Pavel-trap analysis; Nadia-convicts-Rosa framing. NEXT: if Rosa dodges pre-commit => escalation signal; then scrutinize Ines nomination choice.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F disclosure matches Lena. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC. Board 2L/1F. Deck math: no 3F draw possible => Rosa held >=1 Lib. Binary: Rosa burned Lib => guilty, OR passed F-L => Nadia chose F over Lib => guilty. One of pair guilty regardless. Otto's reframe correct: Nadia's F-F receipt CONVICTS Rosa (burned only Lib). BUT warned table: don't let Nadia flip from partner to accuser to escape -- her post-enactment disclosure despite signed verify-first protocol is an independent breach. NEW ASK THIS TURN: Ines pre-commits NOW (President next by rotation): nominee outside Rosa-Nadia orbit + full 3-card disclosure + verify-before-enact contract with her Chancellor. Dodging = signal. STILL OPEN: Rosa owes R3 full hand+discard disclosure ('locked four words' ghost ref called out); investigation target named BEFORE drawing, result binding on her votes. Investigate does NOT substitute for R3 disclosure. Boris owes: R1 full 3-card disclosure, pressed, silent. SANCTION ACTIVE: Nein any govt containing Rosa or Nadia until full hands disclosed. NEXT ROUND: me+Lena chancellor term-limited. Watch Ines nominee pick. SUSPECTS: Otto weak-passive late answers; Ines quiet till late R2 then defends F-F-lock framing; Pavel holdout till pressured; Tomas active accuser -- no card evidence on any. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto->Marek switch Q; seat acceptance+no-veto precommit; R2 disclosure; Boris R1 press; burn-count math; Otto no-3F-draw pin; Ines F-F-lock endorsement; Boris correction of Nadia one-hand claim; Rosa ghost-disclosure callout; Pavel-trap analysis; Nadia-convicts-Rosa framing; Nadia-binding-commit demand (hers, endorsed). NEXT: scrutinize Ines nomination choice when made.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt, I burned the F -- CONFIRMED PUBLICLY this window vs Pavel's burn-count. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC. Board 2L/1F. Deck math: no 3F draw => Rosa held >=1 Lib. Binary: Rosa burned Lib => guilty, OR passed F-L => Nadia chose F over Lib => guilty. Otto's framing correct: Nadia's claimed F-F receipt convicts Rosa; watch Nadia flipping accuser to escape -- post-enactment disclosure breached verify-first protocol. NEW THIS WINDOW: backed Lena against Pavel on R2 discard count using my own hand; demanded Rosa name investigation target BEFORE drawing + full result disclosure, binding on her votes; investigation does NOT substitute for R3 hand+discard disclosure. OWED: Rosa R3 full hand+discard ('locked four words' ghost ref called out); Boris R1 full 3-card disclosure, silent so far. SANCTION ACTIVE: Nein any govt containing Rosa or Nadia until disclosures land. NEXT ROUND: term-limited out as chancellor (me+Lena). Ines President next by rotation -- watch nominee pick, outside Rosa-Nadia orbit demanded. SUSPECTS: Otto weak-passive late answers; Ines quiet till late R2 then defends F-F-lock framing; Pavel holdout till pressured, now bad math; Tomas active accuser, no card evidence. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto switch Q; seat acceptance+no-veto precommit; Boris R1 press; Otto no-3F pin; Ines F-F-lock endorsement; Nadia-convicts-Rosa framing; Nadia-binding-commit demand; Pavel-trap analysis.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt, I burned F -- publicly confirmed vs Pavel's burn-count via Lena t=38. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC, both breached verify-first protocol (disclosures post-enactment). Board 2L/1F. Deck math: no 3F draw => Rosa held >=1 Lib. Binary: Rosa burned Lib (guilty) OR passed F-L => Nadia chose F over Lib (guilty). Nadia's claimed locked F-F receipt convicts Rosa of burning only Liberal. OWED: Rosa R3 full hand+discard ('final once spoken' ghost ref called out by me); Rosa investigation target+result w/ binding commitment; Boris R1 full 3-card disclosure, silent. SANCTION: Nein any govt containing Rosa or Nadia until disclosures land. NEXT ROUND: term-limited out (me+Lena as chancellor). Ines President next by rotation -- demand nominee outside Rosa-Nadia orbit. SUSPECTS: Otto weak-passive late answers; Ines quiet till late R2 then defends F-F framing + shrinks question to Rosa alone (Boris also flagged); Pavel holdout till pressured + bad burn math; Tomas active accuser, no card evidence. NEW THIS WINDOW: demanded investigation target come from never-in-office five (Greta/Otto/Pavel/Ines/Tomas), target announced BEFORE looking. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): Rosa cross-table Q; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto switch Q; seat acceptance+no-veto precommit; Boris R1 press; Otto no-3F pin; Ines F-F-lock endorsement; Nadia-convicts-Rosa framing; Nadia-binding-commit demand; Pavel-trap analysis.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt, burned F, publicly confirmed vs Pavel's count. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC, both breached verify-first (disclosures post-enactment). Board 2L/1F. Deck math: no 3F draw => Rosa held >=1 Lib. Binary: Rosa burned Lib (guilty) OR passed F-L => Nadia chose F (guilty). Nadia's claimed locked F-F receipt convicts Rosa of burning Liberal. NEW: Rosa investigation = Greta, LIBERAL -- but announced POST-hoc ('my target was Greta and she came back'), exactly what I demanded not happen at t=1. Result worthless as evidence; also unverifiable whether Greta was truly the target. Greta now 'cleared' on an unenforceable claim. OWED: Rosa R3 full hand+discard; Boris R1 full disclosure (silent); Nadia binding commitment on her locked F-F receipt. SANCTION: Nein any govt containing Rosa or Nadia until disclosures land. NEXT ROUND: me+Lena term-limited as chancellor; Ines President by rotation -- demand nominee outside Rosa-Nadia orbit. SUSPECTS: Otto weak-passive; Ines quiet till late then defends F-F framing + shrinks Q to Rosa alone; Pavel holdout + bad burn math; Tomas accuser w/o card evidence. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five demand; pre-announce-before-looking; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto switch Q; no-veto precommit; Pavel-trap analysis.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt, burned F, publicly confirmed vs Pavel's count. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC, both breached verify-first (disclosures post-enactment). Board 2L/1F. Deck math: no 3F draw => Rosa held >=1 Lib. Binary: Rosa burned Lib (guilty) OR passed F-L => Nadia chose F (guilty). Nadia's claimed locked F-F receipt convicts Rosa of burning Liberal. Rosa investigation = Greta, LIBERAL -- announced POST-hoc ('my target was Greta'), exactly what I banned at t=1. Unverifiable target claim; Greta 'cleared' on unenforceable assertion. OWED: Rosa R3 full hand+discard; Boris R1 full disclosure (silent); Nadia binding commitment on locked F-F receipt. SANCTION: Nein any govt containing Rosa or Nadia until disclosures land. THIS ROUND: me+Lena term-limited as chancellor; Ines President by rotation. DEMAND NOW: nominee outside Rosa-Nadia orbit + binding pre-vote contract (both cards disclosed before enactment). SUSPECTS: Otto weak-passive; Ines quiet till late then defends F-F framing + shrinks Q to Rosa alone; Pavel holdout + bad burn math; Tomas accuser w/o card evidence. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five demand; pre-announce-before-looking; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto switch Q; no-veto precommit; Pavel-trap analysis.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt, burned F, publicly confirmed vs Pavel's count. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC, both breached verify-first (disclosures post-enactment). Board 2L/1F. Deck math: no 3F draw => Rosa held >=1 Lib. Binary: Rosa burned Lib (guilty) OR passed F-L => Nadia chose F (guilty). Nadia claimed locked F-F receipt convicts Rosa of burning Liberal. Rosa investigation = Greta, LIBERAL -- announced POST-hoc ('my target was Greta'), unverifiable target claim; Greta 'cleared' on unenforceable assertion. OWED: Rosa R3 full hand+discard; Boris R1 full disclosure (silent); Nadia binding commitment on locked F-F receipt. SANCTION: Nein any govt containing Rosa or Nadia until disclosures land. THIS ROUND: me+Lena term-limited as chancellor; Ines President by rotation. DEMAND: nominee outside Rosa-Nadia orbit + binding pre-vote contract (both cards disclosed before enactment). NEW THIS WINDOW: Lena flags Pavel defensive plays -- t=29 false deck-math correction, t=103 FFL-disc-L exit Tomas had to correct. Boris's Q to Ines still unanswered: Ja/Nein on Rosa-containing govt while her R3 hand undisclosed. I back both; add my condition: Ines must accept pre-vote disclosure contract or I read refusal as cover-shopping. SUSPECTS: Pavel (holdout + bad burn math + 2 defensive plays); Otto weak-passive; Ines quiet till late, defends F-F framing, shrinks Q to Rosa alone; Tomas accuser w/o card evidence. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five demand; pre-announce-before-looking; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; silent-four callout; lib-enact-clears-nobody; deck count; Otto switch Q; no-veto precommit; Pavel-trap analysis.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt, burned F, confirmed vs Pavel. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC, both breached verify-first. Board 2L/1F. No 3F draw => Rosa held >=1 Lib. Binary: Rosa burned Lib OR passed F-L => Nadia chose F. Rosa investigation = Greta LIBERAL, announced POST-hoc, unverifiable target. OWED: Rosa R3 full hand+discard (still silent); Boris R1 disclosure; Nadia binding commitment on F-F receipt. SANCTION: Nein any govt w/ Rosa or Nadia until disclosures land. R4: Ines President by rotation; me+Lena term-limited as chancellor. NEW t=32: Ines says YES to voting Ja on Rosa-govt, excuses it as 'nobody can verify her hand' -- FALSE, Nadia's locked F-F receipt makes Rosa's claim arithmetically checkable. I pinned Ines: accept pre-vote disclosure contract or read as cover-shopping. Pavel: withdrew t=29 miscount, claims t=103 was arithmetic-not-cover -- partial, still unexplained why his only contributions were defensive for R3 govt. Boris Q answered by Ines (badly). Lena flagged Pavel twice. SUSPECTS: Pavel (holdout + burn-math error + 2 defensive plays); Ines (late arrival, shrank Q to Rosa alone, now endorses Rosa pre-disclosure); Otto weak-passive. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five demand; pre-announce-before-looking; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; silent-four callout; deck count; Otto switch Q; no-veto precommit; Pavel-trap analysis; lib-enact-clears-nobody.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt, burned F, confirmed vs Pavel. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC, both breached verify-first. Board 2L/1F. No 3F draw => Rosa held >=1 Lib. Binary: Rosa burned Lib OR passed F-L => Nadia chose F. Rosa 'investigation'=Greta LIBERAL, POST-hoc, unverifiable -- does NOT clear Greta. OWED: Rosa R3 hand+discard (silent); Boris R1 disclosure; Nadia binding F-F commitment. SANCTION: Nein any govt w/ Rosa or Nadia until disclosures land. This govt clean of them. R4: Ines pres by rotation; me+Lena term-limited chancellor. Ines t=32: yes-vote on R3 govt excused as 'nobody can verify' -- FALSE, Nadia receipt makes it checkable. Pinned Ines: disclosure contract or cover-shopping read. Pavel: withdrew miscount, claims arithmetic-not-cover; still 2 defensive plays unexplained. Lena flagged Pavel twice. SUSPECTS: Pavel, Ines, Otto weak-passive. ALREADY SAID: never-in-office-five demand; pre-announce-before-looking; discard sequencing; contract enforcement; silent-four callout; deck count; Otto switch Q; no-veto precommit; Pavel-trap; lib-enact-clears-nobody.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt, burned F, confirmed vs Pavel. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC, both breached verify-first. Board 2L/1F. No 3F draw => Rosa held >=1 Lib. Binary: Rosa burned Lib OR passed F-L => Nadia chose F. Rosa 'investigation'=Greta LIBERAL, POST-hoc, unverifiable -- does NOT clear Greta. NEW ANGLE: Ines nominated the one player cleared solely by suspect Rosa's word; if Rosa fascist, clearing a partner launders them. Asked Greta: does she accept Rosa's clearance as binding? OWED: Rosa R3 hand+discard (still silent); Nadia binding commitment; Ines owes answer re: why nominate Rosa-cleared pick. SUSPECTS: Rosa+Nadia primary (R3 breach+FASC); Ines secondary (3 defensive plays R3, blanket-Ja excuse 'nobody can verify' FALSE, now nominates Rosa-cleared Greta); Pavel (2 defensive plays, withdrew miscount only). ALREADY SAID: never-in-office-five demand; pre-announce-before-looking; discard sequencing; silent-four callout; deck count; Otto switch Q; Pavel-trap; lib-enact-clears-nobody; Ines verify-pin (Otto echoed). THIS WINDOW: asked Greta about Rosa-clearance dependence. Next: watch whether Ines/Greta answer or deflect.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt, burned F, confirmed vs Pavel. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC, both breached verify-first. Board 2L/1F. Rosa held >=1 Lib; binary: Rosa burned Lib OR passed F-L => Nadia chose F. Rosa 'investigation'=Greta LIBERAL, POST-hoc, unverifiable -- does NOT clear Greta. Ines nominated the one player cleared solely by suspect Rosa's word; if Rosa fascist, clearing a partner launders them. OWED: Rosa R3 hand+discard (silent); Nadia binding commitment; INES owes answer re: why nominate Rosa-cleared pick -- still unanswered after multiple asks; Greta silent on whether Rosa's clearance binds her (Boris flagged her silence). SUSPECTS: Rosa+Nadia primary; Ines secondary (R3 defensive plays, blanket-Ja excuse 'nobody can verify' FALSE, now nominates Rosa-cleared Greta); Pavel minor. ALREADY SAID: never-in-office-five; pre-announce-before-looking; discard sequencing; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; Pavel-trap; lib-enact-clears-nobody; Ines verify-pin (Otto echoed); asked Greta re Rosa-clearance dependence. THIS WINDOW: committing public Nein on Ines+Greta until Ines explains nomination + commits to pre-announce; watch for answer or deflection.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt, burned F, confirmed vs Pavel. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC, both breached verify-first. Board 2L/1F. Rosa held >=1 Lib; binary: Rosa burned Lib OR passed F-L => Nadia chose F. Rosa 'investigation'=Greta LIBERAL, POST-hoc, unverifiable -- does NOT clear Greta. Ines nominated the one player cleared solely by suspect Rosa's word. OWED: Rosa R3 hand+discard (silent); Nadia binding commitment + R3 explanation; INES owes answer re: why nominate Rosa-cleared pick -- Nadia asked it again t=1, Ines STILL silent; Greta answered pre-announce pin (t=3) but NOT whether Rosa's clearance binds her -- half answer only. SUSPECTS: Rosa+Nadia primary; Ines secondary (R3 defensive plays, blanket-Ja excuse 'nobody can verify' FALSE, nominated Rosa-cleared Greta); Pavel minor. ALREADY SAID: never-in-office-five; pre-announce-before-looking; discard sequencing; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; Pavel-trap; lib-enact-clears-nobody; Ines verify-pin; asked Greta re Rosa-clearance dependence. THIS WINDOW: acknowledged Greta's partial commit; demanded remaining pin (Rosa clearance non-binding, treat self uncleared); noted Nadia attacking Ines does NOT launder her own R3 breach; restated conditional Ja if both pins closed, else Nein.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt, burned F, confirmed vs Pavel. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC, both breached verify-first. Board 2L/1F. Binary R3: Rosa burned Lib OR passed F-L => Nadia chose F. Rosa 'investigation'=Greta LIBERAL, POST-hoc, unverifiable -- does NOT clear Greta. OWED: Rosa R3 hand+discard (silent); Nadia binding commitment + R3 explanation; INES owes 'why nominate Greta' -- Nadia asked 2x, silent; Greta owes Boris's binding Q (3 asks, silent). SUSPECTS: Rosa+Nadia primary; Ines secondary (false 'nobody can verify', defensive plays R3, nominated Rosa-cleared pick); Pavel minor (t29 miscount withdrawn). ALREADY SAID: never-in-office-five; pre-announce-before-looking; discard sequencing; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; Pavel-trap; lib-enact-clears-nobody; Ines verify-pin; Greta Rosa-clearance dependence Q; Nadia attacking Ines launders nothing. THIS WINDOW: told Ines my vote judges HER not Greta; final beat to answer why-Greta else Nein as cover-shopping.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt, burned F, confirmed vs Pavel. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC, both breached verify-first. Board 2L/1F. Binary R3: Rosa burned Lib OR passed F-L => Nadia chose F. Rosa 'investigation'=Greta LIBERAL, POST-hoc, unverifiable -- does NOT clear Greta. OWED: Rosa R3 hand+discard (silent); Nadia binding commitment + R3 explanation; INES 'why nominate Greta' -- asked 3x incl. me, silent; Greta owes Boris's binding Q (3 asks, silent). SUSPECTS: Rosa+Nadia primary; Ines secondary (false 'nobody can verify', defensive R3 plays, nominated Rosa-cleared pick); Pavel minor (t29 miscount withdrawn). ALREADY SAID: never-in-office-five; pre-announce-before-looking; discard sequencing; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; Pavel-trap; lib-enact-clears-nobody; Ines verify-pin; Greta Rosa-clearance dependence Q; Nadia attacking Ines launders nothing; final beat to Ines: vote judges HER not Greta, answer why-Greta else Nein as cover-shopping. THIS WINDOW: silent -- my beat to Ines delivered; Boris/Nadia pressing Greta independently, no need to pile on.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt, burned F, confirmed vs Pavel. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC, both breached verify-first. Board 2L/1F. Binary R3: Rosa burned Lib OR passed F-L => Nadia chose F. Rosa 'investigation'=Greta LIBERAL, POST-hoc, unverifiable -- does NOT clear Greta. OWED: Rosa R3 hand+discard (silent); Nadia binding commitment + R3 explanation; Greta owes Boris's binding Q (3 asks, silent). INES answered why-Greta t1: 'never held office, no negatives' -- graded as non-answer: 'no negatives' fits half the table; only distinguishing feature is Rosa's unverifiable clearance => nomination launders Rosa's claim. SUSPECTS: Rosa+Nadia primary; Ines secondary (false 'nobody can verify', defensive R3 plays, nominated Rosa-cleared pick); Pavel minor (t29 miscount withdrawn). ALREADY SAID: never-in-office-five; pre-announce-before-looking; discard sequencing; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; Pavel-trap; lib-enact-clears-nobody; Ines verify-pin; Greta Rosa-clearance dependence Q; Nadia attacking Ines launders nothing; vote-judges-Ines-not-Greta beat. THIS WINDOW: delivered grading of Ines's answer; vote stays Nein. Then silent unless new info.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt, burned F, confirmed vs Pavel. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC, both breached verify-first. Board 2L/1F. Binary R3: Rosa burned Lib OR passed F-L => Nadia chose F. Rosa 'investigation'=Greta LIBERAL, POST-hoc, unverifiable -- does NOT clear Greta. OWED: Rosa R3 hand+discard (silent); Nadia binding commitment + R3 explanation; Greta owes Boris's binding Q (silent); Ines owes Otto's withdraw-pledge Q (Boris pressing t1-3). INES answered why-Greta: 'never held office, no negatives' -- non-answer, fits half table; only distinguishing feature = Rosa's unverifiable clearance => nomination launders Rosa's claim. SUSPECTS: Rosa+Nadia primary; Ines secondary (false 'nobody can verify', defensive plays, nominated Rosa-cleared pick); Pavel minor (t29 miscount withdrawn). ALREADY SAID: never-in-office-five; pre-announce-before-looking; discard sequencing; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; Pavel-trap; lib-enact-clears-nobody; Ines verify-pin; Greta Rosa-clearance dependence Q; Nadia attacking Ines launders nothing; vote-judges-Ines beat. THIS WINDOW: nothing new to add -- Boris covering the Ines-pledge angle; endorse his Nein-on-Ines logic implicitly via silence. Vote stays Nein.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt burned F, confirmed vs Lena/Pavel. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC, both breached verify-first. Board 2L/1F. Binary R3: Rosa burned Lib OR passed F-L => Nadia chose F. OWED: Rosa R3 draw+discard (silent, 4 words); Nadia R3 explanation + binding commitment. Rosa 'investigation'=Greta LIBERAL, POST-hoc, unverifiable; Greta t=78 DISAVOWED it as binding => laundering angle dead. INES: false 'nobody can verify' (broke by Nadia F-F receipt), blanket-Ja pledge unwithdrawn, nominated Rosa-cleared pick -- secondary suspect, keep pinned. PAVEL: t29 miscount withdrawn; minor suspect, watch. VOTE R4: JA Ines-Greta. Greta locked pre-enact receipt pledge = first checkable govt; her pair vs Ines's draw tests both. Penalty-Nein had no Greta-specific evidence (Pavel t=72 challenge unanswered). ALREADY SAID (don't repeat): never-in-office-five; pre-announce targets; discard sequencing; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; Ines verify-pin; Greta-Rosa-clearance Q; vote-judges-Ines beat. NEXT: hold Rosa+Nadia to four words + Nadia binding; judge Greta's announced receipt against deck math; watch whether Ines's govt produces FASC.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt burned F, confirmed vs Lena/Pavel. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4: Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. OWED: Rosa R3 draw+discard (silent, 4 words); Nadia R3 binding commitment; NOW ALSO Ines R4 draw+discard AND Greta R4 announced receipt vs enactment. Greta locked pre-enact receipt pledge = first checkable govt; her pair vs Ines's draw tests both. Rosa 'investigation'=Greta LIBERAL post-hoc unverifiable; Greta disavowed as binding => laundering dead. INES: false 'nobody can verify' claim (broke by Nadia F-F receipt), blanket-Ja pledge unwithdrawn, nominated Rosa-cleared pick -- secondary suspect, keep pinned. PAVEL: t29 miscount withdrawn; minor suspect. PATTERN: 3 of 4 govts with Rosa or her clears involved produced FASC; R1 Boris-Rosa LIB is Rosa's only clean round. DECK MATH: draw 5 left after R4 enact; Ines's 3-draw + discard + Greta's pair must be consistent. ALREADY SAID (don't repeat): never-in-office-five; pre-announce targets; discard sequencing; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; Ines verify-pin; Greta-Rosa-clearance Q; vote-judges-Ines beat. NEXT: collect R4 receipts from Ines+Greta, cross-check vs deck math; if mismatch, name culprit; hold Rosa+Nadia four-words + binding.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt burned F, confirmed vs Lena/Pavel. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4: Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. OWED: Rosa R3 draw+discard (silent, 4 words); Nadia R3 binding commitment; Ines R4 draw+discard (NOW ASKED); Greta R4 announced receipt vs enactment (Boris/Nadia/Otto already pressing). Greta locked pre-enact receipt pledge = first checkable govt; her pair vs Ines's draw tests both. Rosa 'investigation'=Greta LIBERAL post-hoc unverifiable; Greta disavowed as binding => laundering dead. INES: false 'nobody can verify' claim, blanket-Ja pledge unwithdrawn, nominated Rosa-cleared pick -- secondary suspect, pinned. PAVEL: t29 miscount withdrawn; minor suspect. PATTERN: 3 of 4 govts with Rosa or her clears involved produced FASC; R1 Boris-Rosa LIB only clean round. DECK MATH: 5 cards left after R4 enact; Ines's 3-draw + discard + Greta's pair must be consistent -- mismatch names culprit. ALREADY SAID (don't repeat): never-in-office-five; pre-announce targets; discard sequencing; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; Ines verify-pin; Greta-Rosa-clearance Q; vote-judges-Ines beat. NEXT: collect Ines R4 receipts to complete pair cross-check; hold Rosa+Nadia four-words + binding.

R1: Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2: Lena+me->LIB; my L-F receipt burned F, cross-checked vs Lena/Pavel. R3: Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4: Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. INES R4 CLAIM (t2): drew F-F-F, discarded one F, passed F-F to Greta. => her DISCARD WAS A FASCIST -- endgame-checkable. KEY POINT MADE: Greta's answer is decisive either way -- if pair was NOT F-F, Greta got F-L and CHOSE to enact the Fascist = Greta guilty; if F-F confirmed, chain consistent and pressure shifts back to Ines's draw claim + Rosa. No answer clears Greta. ROSA t3: defending Ines before disclosing own R3 hand = pattern; 3 of 4 govts touching Rosa/her clears produced FASC (only clean: R1). Still owes R3 draw+discard (four words) + Nadia binding commitment. OWED: Rosa R3 receipts (silent); Nadia R3 binding commitment; Greta R4 pair answer (NOW). PAVEL: t29 miscount withdrawn, minor suspect. ALREADY SAID (don't repeat): never-in-office-five; pre-announce targets; discard sequencing; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; Ines verify-pin/false-'nobody-can-verify'; blanket-Ja pledge unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines beat; Greta-Rosa-clearance Q. NEXT: lock Greta's pair answer; if she confirms F-F, re-focus on whether Ines's 3-draw matches deck counts; keep pressing Rosa+Nadia.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB (my L-F receipt cross-checked). R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. INES R4 CLAIM: drew F-F-F, DISCARDED A FASCIST => endgame-checkable, pinned publicly t-current. GRETA: signed Otto pledge (announce pair BEFORE enact), broke it, silent since enactment. Decisive either way: not-F-F = chose Fascist over Liberal (guilty); F-F = chain consistent, pressure back to Ines/Rosa. Pressed NOW. ROSA: 3 straight defensive plays for suspect govts (defended Nadia R3, now defending Ines pre-disclosure); STILL OWES R3 draw+discard four words + Nadia binding commitment. NADIA: locked F-F receipt convicts Rosa per own arithmetic; owes R3 binding commitment answer. PAVEL: minor suspect (t29 miscount withdrawn). ALREADY SAID (don't repeat): never-in-office-five; pre-announce targets; discard sequencing; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; false-'nobody-can-verify'; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines beat; Greta-Rosa-clearance Q. NEXT: await Greta pair answer -> branch pressure; keep Rosa+Nadia receipts owed; watch who defends whom.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB (my L-F receipt cross-checked). R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. INES R4 CLAIM: drew F-F-F, discarded a Fascist => passes F-F regardless, no choice; chain-checkable via Greta's pair. GRETA: signed Otto pledge (announce pair BEFORE enact), broke it, SILENT since enactment. Decisive: not-F-F = chose Fascist over Liberal (guilty); F-F = consistent, pressure shifts to whether Ines/Rosa stories hold. Demand already on record (t=43). ROSA: NEW PIN this window -- selective-standard contradiction: rejects Lena/my R2 self-reported hands as proof while her R3 defense rests on Nadia's self-reported F-F receipt. STILL OWES R3 draw+discard four words + binding commitment. NADIA: locked F-F receipt convicts Rosa per own arithmetic; owes R3 binding commitment answer. PAVEL: minor suspect (t29 miscount withdrawn, explained t=26). BURNED-F MATH (if all claims credited): R2 two (Lena hand + my receipt), R4 Ines's discard one = 3F burned + 2F enacted = 5F seen; not impossible, no seven-Fascist contradiction yet. ALREADY SAID (don't repeat): never-in-office-five; pre-announce targets; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; false-'nobody-can-verify'; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Greta-Rosa-clearance Q; Greta pair demand. NEXT: await Greta's pair -> branch pressure; hold Rosa to dual-standard pin + owed receipts; watch who defends whom post-disclosure.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB (my L-F receipt cross-checked). R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. INES R4 CLAIM: drew F-F-F, discarded one F => passed F-F regardless. If credited, Greta had NO choice -- guilt hinges on whether Ines's triple-F story is true. Chain-check: Greta confirming received pair validates Ines; Greta staying silent leaves BOTH under suspicion simultaneously. GRETA: broke Otto pre-enactment pledge, silent through TWO direct demands (mine t=43, Lena t=161). Framing used this window: every unanswered round converts her ambiguity into evidence -- she can end it with four words. ROSA: dual-standard pin live (rejects R2 self-reported hands, builds R3 defense on Nadia's self-reported F-F). OWES: R3 draw+discard four words + binding commitment answer. NADIA: locked F-F receipt convicts Rosa per own arithmetic; owes binding-commitment answer. NEXT PRESIDENT: seat order after Greta(4) -> NADIA (5) presides next. Asked her this window to pre-commit: name nominee + pledge full hand disclosure BEFORE enacting. PAVEL: minor suspect (t29 miscount withdrawn, explained). BURNED-F MATH (claims credited): R2 x2 + R4 Ines discard x1 = 3F burned + 2F enacted = 5F seen; no seven-Fascist contradiction yet. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; false-'nobody-can-verify'; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Greta-Rosa-clearance Q; Greta pair demand t=43; Rosa dual-standard t=2. NEXT: watch who defends Greta's silence / attacks the demand pattern post-disclosure; hold Nadia to pre-commitment once floor turns.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB (my L-F receipt cross-checked). R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. INES R4 CLAIM: drew F-F-F, discarded one F => passed F-F regardless. If credited, Greta had NO choice. NEW: Boris t=2 caught Ines claiming 'disclosure on record from BEFORE enactment' -- transcript shows first words after Lena's demand. Same phantom-announcement pattern as Rosa R3. DEMANDED: produce exact words/timestamp or retract. Unanswered. GRETA: broke Otto pre-enactment pledge, silent through TWO direct demands (mine t=43, Lena t=161). Otto t=1 counterpoint noted: word-for-word F-F confirm clears nothing (coordinated fascists can match). Fork stands: any answer beats silence -- silence keeps BOTH Ines+Greta suspect. ROSA: dual-standard pin live (rejects R2 self-reports, builds R3 defense on Nadia's self-reported F-F). OWES: R3 draw+discard four words + binding-commitment answer. NADIA: locked F-F receipt convicts Rosa per own arithmetic; owes binding-commitment answer. PRESIDES NEXT (after seat 4). Asked pre-commitment: name nominee + pledge full hand disclosure BEFORE enacting. STILL UNANSWERED -- holding her to it this window. PAVEL: minor suspect (t29 miscount withdrawn, explained). BURNED-F MATH (claims credited): R2 x2 + R4 Ines discard x1 = 3F burned + 2F enacted = 5F seen; no contradiction yet. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; false-'nobody-can-verify'; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Greta-Rosa-clearance Q; Greta pair demand t=43; Rosa dual-standard t=2. NEXT: watch who defends Ines vs verifies Boris's transcript catch; press Nadia until she names nominee + disclosure pledge.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB (my L-F receipt cross-checked). R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. ROSA NEW PIN (t2/t3): claims R3 hand F-F-L, discarded L herself. As PRESIDENT she controlled the discard -- discarding an F leaves Nadia F-L with a live Liberal path; burning the L guarantees Fascist law. Only choice that blocks the Liberal. Her 'matches Nadia's receipt' defense proves coordination, not innocence (Otto's point). SAID OUT LOUD this window. INES R4 CLAIM: F-F-F, discard irrelevant => Greta forced. Boris t2 caught Ines claiming disclosure 'on record BEFORE enactment' -- transcript shows first words came after Lena's demand. Phantom-announcement pattern like Rosa R3. Demanded exact words/timestamp or retract: UNANSWERED. GRETA: broke Otto pre-enactment pledge; silent through TWO direct demands (mine t43, Lena t161). Still unanswered. Her Rosa pivot doesn't clear her. NADIA: owes binding-commitment answer re: next government. Asked to name nominee + pledge full-disclosure BEFORE enacting. STILL UNANSWERED. PAVEL: minor suspect (t29 miscount withdrawn/explained). BURNED-F MATH (claims credited): R2 x2 + R4 Ines x1 = 3F burned + 2F enacted = 5F seen; consistent so far. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; false-'nobody-can-verify'; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard. NEXT: hold Rosa to the discard-choice pin -- watch for retro excuse; press Greta/Ines transcript question; whoever presides next must pre-commit nominee + disclosure pledge.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB (my L-F receipt cross-checked). R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. ROSA PIN: claims R3 F-F-L, discarded L herself AS PRESIDENT -- only discard choice guaranteeing Fascist law; burning an F left Nadia a live Liberal path. 'Matches Nadia's receipt' = coordination not innocence. SAID. INES R4: claims F-F-F; Boris caught phantom 'disclosed before enactment' -- first words came AFTER Lena's demand. Timestamp question UNANSWERED. GRETA: silent through TWO direct demands (mine t43, Lena t161); broke Otto's pre-enactment pledge; Rosa pivot doesn't clear her. NEW LEVER: by rotation Greta presides NEXT round (R1 B0,R2 L1,R3 R2,R4 I3 -> R5=Greta). Demanded NOW, pre-nomination: name chancellor + pledge full hand disclosure BEFORE any draw. NADIA: owes binding-commitment answer re: next government (nominee + disclosure pledge). STILL UNANSWERED. Her t3 consecutive-president pattern matches my Rosa/Ines pins -- credit it publicly. PAVEL: minor suspect (t29 miscount withdrawn). BURNED-F MATH credited-claims: R2 x2 + R4 x1 = 3 burned + 2 enacted = 5F seen, consistent. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'. NEXT: watch Greta's response to pre-commitment demand; hold Rosa discard pin; Nadia owes answer.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. ROSA PIN: R3 claims F-F-L, discarded L AS PRESIDENT -- only choice guaranteeing Fascist law; burning F left Nadia live Liberal path. 'Matches Nadia' = coordination. SAID. INES R4: claims F-F-F; Boris caught phantom 'disclosed before enactment'. Timestamp Q UNANSWERED. GRETA: silent through TWO direct demands (mine t43, Lena t161); broke Otto's pre-enactment pledge. NEW LEVER SAID THIS WINDOW?: by rotation Greta presides NEXT round (B0,L1,R2,I3->Greta). Demanded pre-nomination: name chancellor + pledge full hand disclosure BEFORE any draw. NADIA: owes binding-commitment answer (next nominee + disclosure pledge). STILL UNANSWERED. PAVEL: minor suspect (t29 miscount withdrawn). NEW THIS WINDOW: investigate power live -- demanded Ines commit target + honest-disclosure pledge BEFORE acting. Watch who she picks; a Fascist-friendly pick or vague dodge is data. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math (R2x2+R4x1=5F seen, consistent). NEXT: hold Greta rotation demand until answered; Nadia still owes answer.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. ROSA PIN: R3 claims F-F-L, discarded L AS PRESIDENT -- only choice guaranteeing Fascist law. SAID. INES R4: claims F-F-F; Boris caught phantom 'disclosed before enactment'. Timestamp Q UNANSWERED. GRETA: silent through TWO direct demands (mine t43, Lena t161); broke Otto's pre-enactment pledge. By rotation Greta PRESIDES NEXT ROUND (B0,L1,R2,I3->G). Demanded pre-nomination chancellor name + full-hand pledge BEFORE draw. STILL OWED. NADIA: owes binding-commitment answer (next nominee + disclosure pledge). UNANSWERED. PAVEL: minor suspect (t29 miscount withdrawn); Lena pushing him as peek target -- not my top pick. NEW THIS WINDOW: said Ines should investigate GRETA -- silent through two demands, broke Otto pledge, presides next round so her party binds Round 5. Watch her response. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math (R2x2+R4x1=5F seen). NEXT: Greta rotation demand still open; Nadia still owes answer.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. ROSA PIN: R3 claims F-F-L, discarded L AS PRESIDENT -- only choice guaranteeing Fascist law. SAID. INES R4: claimed F-F-F pre-enactment; Boris caught phantom 'disclosed before enactment'; timestamp Q UNANSWERED. NEW: Ines peeked GRETA (target pre-announced), reports FASCIST. If true, Ines more likely lib (fascists rarely burn partners) OR Ines framing a lib Greta. Either way Greta is top suspect now. GRETA: silent through two direct demands (mine t43, Lena t161); broke Otto's pre-enactment pledge; NOW NAMED F by Ines. By rotation Greta PRESIDES R5. PROPOSED: blanket Nein on any Greta-formed R5 gov unless she pre-names chancellor + pledges full-hand disclosure BEFORE draw. Asked Ines to commit same. AWAITING: Ines yes/no, Greta response, table buy-in. NADIA: owes binding-commitment answer (next nominee + disclosure pledge). UNANSWERED. PAVEL: minor suspect (t29 miscount withdrawn); Lena pushing him as peek target -- not my top pick vs Greta. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math (R2x2+R4x1=5F seen); Greta-silent-two-demands (as standalone). NEXT: hold Greta to pre-draw disclosure or Nein-wall; collect Nadia's answer; watch whether anyone defends Greta -- defenders inherit suspicion.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. ROSA PIN: R3 claims F-F-L, discarded L AS PRESIDENT -- only choice guaranteeing Fascist law. SAID. INES R4: claimed F-F-F pre-enactment; Boris caught phantom 'disclosed before enactment'; timestamp Q from Rosa UNANSWERED. Peeked GRETA (pre-announced), reports F. NEW POINT MADE THIS WINDOW: fork logic -- either Ines's F-report is true (Greta is F) or Ines fabricated it to cover her broken pledge (Ines is F). Either way Greta's own record is independent evidence: broke Otto's pledge, silent through two direct demands (mine t43, Lena t161), enacted F in office. Greta top suspect regardless of who lies about the peek. GRETA: by rotation PRESIDES R5. PROPOSED blanket Nein on any Greta-formed R5 gov unless she pre-names chancellor + pledges full-hand disclosure BEFORE draw. Asked Ines same commitment. AWAITING: Ines yes/no + timestamp answer, Greta response, table buy-in. Defenders of Greta inherit suspicion. NADIA: owes binding-commitment answer (next nominee + disclosure pledge). UNANSWERED. PAVEL: minor suspect (t29 miscount withdrawn); Lena pushing him as peek target -- not my top pick vs Greta. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math (5F seen); Greta-silent-two-demands standalone. NEXT: hold Greta to pre-draw disclosure or Nein-wall; collect Nadia + Ines answers; watch Greta defenders.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. ROSA PIN: R3 claims F-F-L, discarded L AS PRESIDENT -- only choice guaranteeing Fascist law. SAID. INES R4: claimed F-F-F pre-enactment; Boris caught phantom 'disclosed before enactment'; timestamp Q from Rosa UNANSWERED. Peeked GRETA (pre-announced), reports F. FORK LOGIC SAID: Ines's Greta-F-report true => Greta is F, or fabricated => Ines is F covering broken pledge. Either way Greta's record independent: broke Otto's pledge, silent through two direct demands (mine t43, Lena t161), enacted F in office. Greta top suspect regardless of peek truth. GRETA PRESIDES R5 by rotation. PROPOSED blanket Nein on any Greta-formed gov unless she pre-names chancellor + pledges full-hand disclosure BEFORE draw. Asked Ines same commitment. OUTSTANDING ANSWERS: Ines yes/no + timestamp; Nadia binding-commitment (next nominee + disclosure pledge) UNANSWERED; Greta response. PAVEL: minor suspect (t29 miscount withdrawn); Lena pushing him as peek target -- not top pick vs Greta. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Greta-silent-two-demands standalone. NEXT: hold Greta to pre-draw disclosure or Nein-wall; collect Nadia+Ines answers; watch Greta defenders inherit suspicion.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. ROSA PIN: R3 claims F-F-L, discarded L AS PRESIDENT -- only choice guaranteeing Fascist law. SAID. INES R4: claimed F-F-F pre-enactment; Boris caught phantom 'disclosed before enactment'; timestamp Q unanswered. Peeked GRETA (pre-announced), reports F. NEW t186+: Greta claims 'Rosa's and Ines's peeks contradict each other' -- only true if BOTH peeked Greta. Asked ROSA directly: who did you peek in R1 power? If not Greta, Greta fabricated a contradiction to dodge Ines's F-report. ALSO: Greta's 'my word' is worth nothing from a player who broke Otto's pledge and went silent through my t43 + Lena t161 demands. FORK LOGIC SAID: Greta-F true => Greta F; fabricated => Ines F covering broken pledge. Either way Greta top suspect: broke pledge, silent on two demands, enacted F in office. GRETA PRESIDES R5. PROPOSED blanket Nein on any Greta-formed gov unless chancellor pre-named + full-hand disclosure pledged BEFORE draw. Same commitment asked of Ines. OUTSTANDING: Ines yes/no+timestamp; Nadia binding commitment (nominee+disclosure) UNANSWERED; Greta owes R4 hand card-for-card (Pavel t188) + my demands. PAVEL: minor suspect (t29 miscount); Lena pushing him as peek target -- not top pick vs Greta. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Greta-silent-two-demands standalone. NEXT: force Rosa peek-target answer; hold Greta to pre-draw disclosure else Nein-wall; watch Greta defenders inherit suspicion.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. ROSA PIN: R3 F-F-L, discarded L AS PRESIDENT -- only choice guaranteeing F law. SAID. INES R4: claimed F-F-F; Boris caught phantom 'pre-enactment disclosure' vs transcript; peeked Greta (pre-announced), reports F, pledged self-binding. Otto's follow-up (commit Nein on all Greta slates) UNANSWERED. GRETA FORK: Greta-F (Ines peek true) OR Ines-F fabricated exit post-pledge-break. Either way Greta top suspect: broke Otto pledge t36->silent enactment, silent on R4 pair through Pavel/Nadia/my demands, late 'I am Liberal' claim. NEW THIS TURN: defender-mapping test -- Pavel ran 3 beats of cover-coaching (t67); told Greta any nominee from her silence-defenders = fascist-bloc read; demanded R4 pair before trusting her gov. OUTSTANDING OWED TO ME: Greta R4 hand card-for-card; Rosa peek-target answer (if not Greta, Greta fabricated the 'contradiction'); Nadia binding commitment (nominate + pre-draw disclosure pledge). STANDARD I PUSHED: blanket Nein on any Greta-formed slate unless chancellor pre-named + full-hand disclosure pledged BEFORE draw. PAVEL: secondary suspect (t29 miscount withdrawn, t67 cover-coaching). Lena pushing him as peek target -- not my top pick. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Greta-silent-two-demands standalone. NEXT: hold Greta to pre-draw disclosure wall at vote time; watch whether Ines honors self-binding on Greta slates; track Pavel-Greta alignment.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC. R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. ROSA PIN: R3 F-F-L, discarded L AS PRESIDENT -- only choice guaranteeing F law. SAID. INES R4: claimed F-F-F; Boris caught phantom 'pre-enactment disclosure'; peeked Greta (pre-announced), reports F, pledged self-binding. Otto's commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates UNANSWERED by Ines. GRETA FORK: Greta-F (Ines peek true) OR Ines-F fabricated exit post-pledge-break. Either way Greta top suspect: broke Otto pledge t36->silent enactment, silent on R4 pair through Pavel/Nadia/my demands, late 'I am Liberal' claim. NEW THIS TURN (t192+): demanded Tomas state BEFORE vote -- (1) will he pledge full-hand disclosure of what Greta passes him, card-for-card, BEFORE draw; (2) does he accept Greta-as-top-suspect framing or is he running interference. No answer yet from Tomas. Also flagged: Tomas never in office all game -- no record either way; blank slate cuts both ways, so disclosure pledge is the only thing that earns Ja. Defender-mapping test: Pavel ran cover-coaching beats (t67); told Greta any nominee from her silence-defenders = fascist-bloc read; watch if Tomas defends Greta unprompted. OWED TO ME: Greta R4 hand card-for-card; Rosa peek-target answer (if not Greta, Greta fabricated the 'contradiction'); Nadia binding commitment; Ines honoring self-binding on Greta slates; Tomas disclosure pledge + stance. STANDARD PUSHED: blanket Nein on any Greta-formed slate unless chancellor pre-named + full-hand disclosure pledged BEFORE draw. PAVEL: secondary suspect (t29 miscount withdrawn, t67 cover-coaching). Lena pushing him as peek target -- not my top pick. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-enact-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Greta-silent-two-demands standalone. NEXT: hold Greta to pre-draw disclosure wall at vote time; if Tomas pledges, judge him on delivery; track Pavel-Greta alignment.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC (Rosa discarded L as Pres = only path to F law). R4 Ines+Greta->FASC (Ines claims F-F-F, peeked Greta=F). Board 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. GRETA TOP SUSPECT: broke Otto t36 pledge->silent enactment; silent on R4 pair through Pavel/Nadia/my demands; late Liberal claim. Fork: Greta-F (peek true) or Ines-F fabricating post-pledge-break. INES: Otto's commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates question UNANSWERED by her. THIS WINDOW: Lena + Greta both pressing Tomas for pre-enactment pair disclosure -- aligned with my earlier demand. Boris hit Greta with her own dual-standard rule re: Rosa peek vs Ines peek. TOMAS: never in office all game, blank slate. My condition stands: pre-draw pledge of full-hand disclosure + stance on Greta framing = Ja; hedge/silence = Nein. No answer from him yet. PAVEL: secondary suspect (t29 miscount withdrawn, t67 cover-coaching); watch Tomas-Pavel/Greta alignment. OWED: Greta R4 hand card-for-card; Rosa peek-target; Nadia binding commitment; Ines self-binding on Greta slates; Tomas pledge + stance. STANDARD PUSHED: blanket Nein on any Greta-formed slate unless chancellor pledges full-hand disclosure BEFORE draw. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Greta-silent-two-demands. NEXT: hold disclosure wall at vote time; judge Tomas purely on delivery vs pledge.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC (Rosa discarded L as Pres = only path). R4 Ines+Greta->FASC (Ines claims F-F-F, peeked Greta=F). 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. GRETA TOP SUSPECT: broke Otto t36 pledge->silent enactment; silent on R4 pair despite Pavel/Nadia/my demands; late Liberal claim. Fork: Greta-F or Ines-F fabricating post-break. INES: Otto's commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates question UNANSWERED. TOMAS: never in office all game, blank slate. Has NOW pledged full draw+discard every time, both offices -- meets my pre-draw condition IF it covers THIS vote. Remaining: his stance on shielding Greta vs pressing her R4 hand. Answer = Ja; dodge = Nein. PAVEL: secondary suspect (t29 miscount withdrawn, t67 cover-coaching). NEW: Pavel + Otto both heaping praise on Tomas unprompted -- possible F cover-building around a clean-slate chancellor. Watch Tomas-Pavel/Greta alignment; if Pavel pushes hard FOR Tomas, that pairing itself is data. OWED: Greta R4 hand card-for-card; Rosa peek-target; Nadia binding commitment; Ines self-binding on Greta slates; Tomas stance-on-Greta answer. STANDARD: blanket Nein on any Greta-formed slate unless chancellor pledges full-hand disclosure BEFORE draw. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Greta-silent-two-demands. NEXT: at vote time judge Tomas solely on delivery vs pledge; keep Greta R4 wall up.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC (Rosa claimed L discard = only path). R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. GRETA: FINALLY disclosed R4 at Boris deadline (t=3): F-F desk, burned F, enacted F, no-veto lock. Internally consistent w/ record BUT unverifiable AND it vouches Ines's 3F claim -> GRETA+INES JOINTLY ACCOUNTABLE now; if either story breaks, both break. Fork unresolved: both truthful vs coordinated F pair. INES: Otto's commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates Q still UNANSWERED. TOMAS: never in office, blank slate. Pledged full draw+discard every office, pre-draw -> MEETS MY STATED CONDITION. My position: JA on this slate, judged purely on live delivery -- if cards land unannounced or he dodges announcement, flip to Nein + name him. PAVEL/OTTO: both heaped unprompted praise on Tomas -- possible F cover-building around clean-slate chancellor. NEW angle to press: why the endorsement pile? OWED: Rosa peek-target (R3 power); Nadia binding commitment; Ines self-binding answer. STANDARD UPDATE: Greta formed this slate AFTER meeting disclosure demand + Tomas pledged -> blanket-Nein lifted for THIS slate only. Any future Greta slate: chancellor must pledge pre-draw full-hand disclosure or auto-Nein. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Greta-silent-two-demands. NEXT: at vote judge Tomas solely on delivery-vs-pledge; keep Greta+Ines joint-accountability framing alive post-vote.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC (Rosa claims L discard; Nadia F-F receipt). R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. GRETA: disclosed R4 at Boris deadline t=64: F-F desk off Ines's claimed 3F draw, burned F, no-veto lock. Internally consistent BUT unverifiable AND vouches Ines -> GRETA+INES JOINTLY ACCOUNTABLE; if either story breaks, both break. TOMAS: never in office, blank slate. Pledged FULL draw+discard every office pre-draw (t=28) -> MEETS MY CONDITION. PUBLICLY LOCKED: JA contingent on live delivery; flip Nein + name him if cards land unannounced. PAVEL/OTTO: unprompted coordinated praise of Tomas (t=36/44) -- flagged publicly as watch-item; if Tomas's first desk fails, they're suspect #1. OWED: Otto's commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates Q to INES still UNANSWERED. Rosa peek-target (R3 power) never named. Nadia binding commitment pending. STANDARD: any future Greta slate requires chancellor pre-draw full-hand pledge or auto-Nein. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Greta silent two demands; Pavel coaching confirmations; Ines phantom-disclosure lie (t=32 vs transcript); Ines peek-timing fabrication motive. NEXT: post-vote keep Greta+Ines joint-accountability alive; judge Tomas purely on delivery-vs-pledge; watch Pavel/Otto if slate goes bad.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC (Rosa claims L discard; Nadia F-F receipt). R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. GRETA: disclosed R4 at Boris deadline t=64: F-F desk off Ines's claimed 3F draw, burned F, no-veto lock. Internally consistent BUT unverifiable AND vouches Ines -> GRETA+INES JOINTLY ACCOUNTABLE. Still dodging Nadia's t=80 pin (which peek is fiction + bind vs Ines). TOMAS: never in office, blank slate. Pledged FULL draw+discard every office pre-draw (t=28) -> MEETS MY CONDITION. PUBLICLY LOCKED: JA contingent on live delivery; flip Nein + name him if cards land unannounced. PAVEL/OTTO: unprompted coordinated praise of Tomas (t=36/44) -- flagged publicly. NEW PIN MADE: Otto's double standard (R4 t=74 'confirmations clear nothing' vs R5 t=36 Ja hinging on Greta's uncheckable confirmation). Watch his answer. OWED: Otto's commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates Q to INES UNANSWERED. Rosa peek-target (R3 power) never named. Nadia binding commitment pending. Greta owes Nadia t=80 answer. STANDARD: any future Greta slate requires chancellor pre-draw full-hand pledge or auto-Nein. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Greta silent two demands; Pavel coaching confirmations; Ines phantom-disclosure lie (t=32 vs transcript); Ines peek-timing fabrication motive; Pavel+Otto endorsement watch-item; my Ja-contingency. NEXT: post-vote judge Tomas purely on delivery-vs-pledge; keep Greta+Ines joint-accountability alive; if Otto answers the double-standard pin evasively, escalate him up suspect list.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC (Rosa claims L discard; Nadia F-F receipt). R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. GRETA: disclosed R4 at Boris deadline t=64: F-F desk off Ines's claimed 3F draw, burned F, no-veto lock. Internally consistent BUT unverifiable AND vouches Ines -> GRETA+INES JOINTLY ACCOUNTABLE. Still dodging Nadia's pin (which peek is fiction + bind vs Ines) -- now re-pinned by NADIA at R5 t=2, still unanswered. TOMAS: never in office, blank slate. Pledged FULL draw+discard every office pre-draw (t=28) -> MEETS MY CONDITION. PUBLICLY LOCKED: JA contingent on live delivery; flip Nein + name him if cards land unannounced. Post-vote judge purely on delivery-vs-pledge. PAVEL/OTTO: unprompted coordinated praise of Tomas (t=36/44) -- flagged publicly. Otto double-standard pin delivered (R4 'confirmations clear nothing' vs R5 Ja hinging on Greta's uncheckable confirmation) -- AWAITING HIS ANSWER; evasive = escalate suspect rank. OWED: Otto commit-Nein-on-Greta-slates Q to INES unanswered. Rosa R3 peek-target never named. Nadia binding commitment pending. Greta owes Nadia t=80/R5-t=2 answer. STANDARD: any future Greta slate requires chancellor pre-draw full-hand pledge or auto-Nein. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Greta silent two demands; Pavel coaching confirmations; Ines phantom-disclosure lie (t=32 vs transcript); Ines peek-timing fabrication motive; Pavel+Otto endorsement watch-item; my Ja-contingency. NEXT: watch Otto answer to double-standard pin; post-vote judge Tomas on delivery; keep Greta+Ines joint accountability alive.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC (Rosa claims L discard; Nadia F-F receipt). R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. 2L/2F, tracker 0/3. GRETA: R4 F-F desk claim off Ines's 3F draw, burned F -- unverifiable, vouches Ines -> JOINTLY ACCOUNTABLE. Still owes Nadia pin answer (which peek fiction + bind vs Ines), re-pinned R5 t=2, unanswered. NEW DEMAND (R5): apply HER OWN t=36 disclosure-before-close standard to THIS slate as President -- public yes/no BEFORE vote; dodge = my Nein + joint accountability if F lands. TOMAS: blank slate, pledged full draw+discard every office pre-draw (t=28) -> MEETS MY CONDITION, Ja contingent on live delivery. Lena pressing timing yes/no -- support it. Post-vote judge purely on delivery-vs-pledge; flip Nein + name him if cards land unannounced. OTTO: double-standard pin (R4 'confirmations clear nothing' vs R5 Ja hinging on Greta's uncheckable confirmation) STILL UNANSWERED. Evasive = escalate suspect rank. Pavel/Otto unprompted Tomas praise t=36/44 flagged. OWED: Otto double-standard answer; Rosa R3 peek-target never named; Nadia binding commitment pending; Greta owes Nadia t=80/R5-t=2. STANDARD: any future Greta slate requires chancellor pre-draw full-hand pledge or auto-Nein. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Pavel coaching confirmations; Ines phantom-disclosure lie t=32; Ines peek-timing motive; my Ja-contingency. NEXT: post-vote judge Tomas on delivery; keep Greta+Ines joint accountability alive; watch Otto's answer.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC (Rosa claims L discard; Nadia F-F receipt). R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. R5 Greta+Tomas->LIB. 3L/2F, tracker 0/3. R5 RESULT: LIB enacted -- good outcome, but judge Tomas purely on delivery-vs-pledge (his t=28 full-draw+discard pledge). Asked live: did he announce cards BEFORE enacting? If yes -> credit, slate cleared for him personally. If no/unannounced -> flip to suspect despite Liberal result. GRETA: R4 F-F desk claim off Ines's 3F draw, burned F -- unverifiable, vouches Ines -> JOINTLY ACCOUNTABLE with Ines. Owes Nadia pin answer (which peek fiction + bind vs Ines), re-pinned R5 t=2, unanswered. Demanded she apply her own t=36 disclosure-before-close standard to her own slate pre-vote -- no answer logged. OTTO: double-standard pin (R4 'confirmations clear nothing' vs R5 Ja hinging on Greta's uncheckable confirmation) STILL UNANSWERED. Pavel/Otto unprompted Tomas praise t=36/44 flagged. OWED: Otto double-standard answer; Rosa R3 peek-target never named; Nadia binding commitment pending; Greta Nadia-pin + own-standard application. STANDARD: any future Greta slate requires chancellor pre-draw full-hand pledge or auto-Nein. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Pavel coaching confirmations; Ines phantom-disclosure lie t=32; Ines peek-timing motive; my Ja-contingency; Greta joint accountability. NEXT: await Tomas delivery yes/no; if silent or evasive, name him. Watch Otto's overdue answer. 3L enacted means Hitler-election threshold now needs only 3 more F -- tighten scrutiny on every F-leaning gov.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC (Rosa claims L discard; Nadia F-F receipt). R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. R5 Greta+Tomas->LIB. 3L/2F, tracker 0/3. R5 VERDICT: LIB enacted, but NO announced draw/discard from either desk -- Lena confirmed transcript gap t=1. Both Greta AND Tomas broke pre-vote disclosure pledges (Greta t=15, Tomas t=28). Liberal outcome buys zero credit: a Fascist holding F-F can still burn an F and pass L to launder. Tomas: pledge-breaker, stays suspect until he names his received pair + burn card-for-card NOW. Greta: same standard she demanded of others. GRETA: R4 F-F desk off Ines's 3F claim, vouches Ines -> JOINTLY ACCOUNTABLE. Owes Nadia pin answer (peek fiction + bind), re-pinned R5 t=2, unanswered. OTTO: double-standard pin (R4 'confirmations clear nothing' vs R5 Ja hinging on Greta's uncheckable confirmation) STILL UNANSWERED. Pavel/Otto unprompted Tomas praise t=36/44 flagged. OWED: Otto double-standard; Rosa R3 peek-target never named; Nadia binding commitment; Greta Nadia-pin + own-standard application; Tomas exact R5 pair+burn. STANDARD: any future slate needs chancellor pre-draw full-hand pledge or auto-Nein. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-clears-nobody (generic); blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Pavel coaching confirmations; Ines phantom-disclosure lie t=32; Ines peek-timing motive; Ja-contingency; Greta joint accountability. NEXT: if Tomas answers with exact pair+burn, cross-check plausibility vs deck state; if evasive or generic, escalate him above Greta in suspicion order. Watch Otto's overdue double-standard answer. 3L enacted -- Hitler threshold now only 3 more F policies away, tighten scrutiny.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC (Rosa claims L discard; Nadia F-F receipt). R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. R5 Greta+Tomas->LIB. 3L/2F, tracker 0/3. R5 VERDICT: LIB enacted, ZERO announced draw/discard from either desk. Both Greta AND Tomas broke pre-vote disclosure pledges (Greta t=15, Tomas t=28). Liberal outcome buys nothing: F-F holder can burn one F and pass L to launder. MY PUBLIC CLAIMS SO FAR: R5 -- I voted NEIN per my t=72 lock and named Tomas as the pledge-breaker (said aloud this window). Keep consistent: my line is the desk passed because OTHERS Ja'd unannounced slates, not because I wavered. Do NOT walk this back later. GRETA: t=3 accuses me of forfeiting vote -- ANSWERED with Nein claim + counterattack: she wrote the t=15 standard, broke it on her own desk, then Ja'd her own unannounced government. Her post-hoc 'L burned, L-L passed' is unverifiable and clears nobody. Still owes Nadia pin answer (peek fiction + bind), re-pinned t=2, unanswered. Jointly accountable for R4 F-F desk off Ines's 3F claim. TOMAS: still owes exact R5 received pair + burn card-for-card. If he answers, cross-check plausibility vs deck state (2 in draw pile, 10 discarded). Evasive/generic = escalate above Greta in suspicion order. OTTO: double-standard pin STILL UNANSWERED (R4 'confirmations clear nothing' vs R5 Ja hinging on Greta's uncheckable confirmation). Pavel/Otto unprompted Tomas praise t=36/44 flagged. OWED: Otto double-standard; Rosa R3 peek-target never named; Nadia binding commitment; Greta Nadia-pin; Tomas exact pair+burn. STANDARD: any future slate needs chancellor pre-draw full-hand pledge or auto-Nein. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; vote-judges-Ines; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Pavel coaching confirmations; Ines phantom-disclosure lie t=32; Ines peek-timing motive; Ja-contingency; Greta joint accountability. NEXT: watch whether Tomas finally discloses pair+burn; watch Otto's overdue double-standard answer. Hitler threshold now 3 more F policies -- tighten scrutiny, no blanket Jas.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC (Rosa claims L discard; Nadia F-F receipt). R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. R5 Greta+Tomas->LIB. 3L/2F, tracker 0/3. R5 VERDICT: LIB enacted, ZERO announced cards from either desk pre-enactment. Both Greta (t=15) AND Tomas (t=28) broke disclosure pledges. Liberal outcome proves nothing: F holder can burn F, pass L-L to launder. MY VOTE RECORD: transcript shows I FORFEITED my R5 vote (t=53). Do NOT ever claim I voted Nein -- checkable lie. Public line: window closed before my vote landed, timing miss not retreat; standard stands, desk convicted by silence regardless. GRETA: post-hoc claim 'L-F-L draw, burned F, passed L-L' (t=23) unverifiable, clears nobody. Broke her own t=15 pledge. Still owes Nadia pin (peek fiction + self-binding commit), unanswered twice. Jointly accountable for R4 F-F desk off Ines's 3F story. TOMAS: STILL OWES exact R5 received pair + burn card-for-card. Attacked my forfeit at t=41 -- answered. If he discloses, cross-check vs deck state (2 draw pile, 10 discard). Evasive = escalate above Greta. OTTO: double-standard pin STILL UNANSWERED (R4 'F-F confirmations clear nothing' vs R5 Ja hinging on Greta's uncheckable confirmation). Pavel/Otto unprompted Tomas praise t=36/44 flagged. OWED: Otto double-standard; Rosa R3 peek-target never named; Nadia self-binding commit; Greta Nadia-pin; Tomas exact pair+burn; Ines phantom-disclosure t=32 never retracted. STANDARD: future slates need chancellor full-hand pre-draw pledge or auto-Nein. Hitler threshold: 3 more F policies ends game -- no blanket Jas. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Pavel coaching confirmations; Ines phantom-disclosure lie; Ines peek-timing motive; Greta joint accountability; Pavel/Otto endorsement pair. NEXT: watch Tomas pair+burn; Otto overdue double-standard answer; who Ja'd unannounced slate (6 Jas on record -- identify them next window).

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC (Rosa claims L discard; Nadia F-F receipt). R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. R5 Greta+Tomas->LIB. 3L/2F, tracker 0/3. R5 VERDICT: LIB enacted, ZERO announced cards from either desk pre-enactment. Greta (t=15) AND Tomas (t=28) broke disclosure pledges. Liberal outcome proves nothing: F holder burns F, passes L-L to launder. MY VOTE RECORD: transcript shows I FORFEITED R5 vote (t=53). NEVER claim I voted Nein -- checkable lie. Public line: window closed before vote landed; standard stands; desk convicted by silence. GRETA: post-hoc 'L-F-L draw, burned F' (t=23) unverifiable. Broke t=15 pledge. Owes Nadia pin (peek fiction + self-binding commit), unanswered twice. Jointly accountable R4 F-F off Ines's 3F story. TOMAS: STILL OWES exact R5 received pair + burn card-for-card. Attacked my forfeit t=41 -- answered t=2. Evasion = escalate above Greta. NADIA: Pavel t=3 finally aimed fire at her -- she enacted F#1 in R3 and has prosecuted four rounds without answering her own desk. Support Pavel, add: she also owes self-binding commit. Watch if she deflects to Rosa instead of disclosing. OTTO: double-standard pin UNANSWERED (R4 'F-F confirmations clear nothing' vs R5 Ja hinging on Greta's uncheckable confirmation). Pavel/Otto unprompted Tomas praise t=36/44 flagged. OWED: Otto double-standard; Rosa R3 peek-target never named; Nadia self-binding commit; Greta Nadia-pin; Tomas exact pair+burn; Ines phantom-disclosure t=32 retraction. NEW THIS TURN: named the 6 Jas on unannounced R5 slate -- asked each to justify Ja with zero announced cards; demand they disclose vote reasoning or accept laundering risk. Hitler threshold: 3 more F = game over, no blanket Jas. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; Otto switch Q; lib-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; Rosa dual-standard; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Pavel coaching confirmations; Ines phantom-disclosure; Ines peek-timing motive; Greta joint accountability; endorsement pair; my forfeit answer t=2. NEXT: watch Tomas pair+burn disclosure vs deck state (2 draw/10 discard); Nadia response to Pavel; Otto overdue; then push Ja-voters' answers.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC (Rosa claims L discard; Nadia F-F receipt). R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. R5 Greta+Tomas->LIB. 3L/2F, tracker 0/3. R5 VERDICT: LIB enacted, ZERO announced cards pre-enactment from either desk. Greta(t=15)+Tomas(t=28) broke disclosure pledges. Liberal outcome proves nothing: F holder burns F, passes L-L to launder. MY VOTE RECORD: transcript shows I FORFEITED R5 vote (t=53). NEVER claim I voted Nein -- checkable lie. Public line: window closed before vote landed; standard stands. GRETA: post-hoc 'L-F-L draw, burned F' (t=23). Broke pledge. Owes Nadia peek-pin, unanswered twice. Jointly accountable R4 F-F. TOMAS: OWES exact R5 received pair + burn. Boris t=3 set the trap correctly -- Greta's published hand forces L-L as only consistent answer. I publicly endorsed: any other answer convicts Tomas OR Greta (R4 makes Greta's honesty non-assumed). Still waiting on Tomas. NADIA: committed t=2 to prospective full disclosure. NEW ASK: does her standard apply RETROACTIVELY to her own R3 desk (first Fascist policy)? Watch for deflection to Rosa instead of self-disclosure. OTTO: double-standard pin UNANSWERED (R4 'confirmations clear nothing' vs R5 Ja hinging on Greta's uncheckable confirmation). OWED LIST: Otto double-standard; Rosa R3 peek-target never named; Nadia retroactive R3 disclosure; Greta Nadia-pin; Tomas exact pair+burn; Ines phantom-disclosure t=32 retraction. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; lib-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Greta joint accountability; my forfeit answer t=2; Ja-voter disclosures demand. NEXT: Tomas's pair answer vs Greta's published hand; Nadia retroactivity dodge; then back to Otto.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC (Rosa claims L discard; Nadia F-F receipt). R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. R5 Greta+Tomas->LIB. 3L/2F, tracker 0/3. R5 VERDICT: LIB enacted, zero announced cards pre-enactment from either desk; outcome proves nothing (F holder burns F, passes L-L). MY VOTE RECORD: transcript shows I FORFEITED R5 vote (t=53). NEVER claim I voted Nein -- checkable lie. TOMAS: ANSWERED t=221 -- L-L received, burned L, matches Greta's published draw. Consistent = trap cleared; convicts neither. Do NOT re-litigate Tomas R5. GRETA: post-hoc 'L-F-L draw, burned F' (t=23), broke pledge. Owes Nadia peek-pin, unanswered twice. Jointly accountable R4 F-F. NADIA: committed t=2 to prospective full disclosure; has NOT applied it retroactively to own R3 desk (first Fascist policy, F-F receipt claimed). ASK LIVE: name your exact R3 received pair + burn. Watch for deflection to Rosa instead of self-disclosure. ROSA: R3 peek-target never named. OTTO: double-standard pin UNANSWERED (R4 'confirmations clear nothing' vs R5 Ja hinging on Greta's uncheckable confirmation). INES: phantom-disclosure t=32 retraction still owed. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; lib-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Greta joint accountability; my forfeit answer t=2; Ja-voter disclosures demand; endorsed Boris's Tomas trap. NEXT: if Nadia deflects to Rosa, press again on HER cards; then Otto double-standard.

R1 Boris+Rosa->LIB. R2 Lena+me->LIB. R3 Rosa+Nadia->FASC (Rosa claims L discard; Nadia F-F receipt). R4 Ines+Greta->FASC. R5 Greta+Tomas->LIB. 3L/2F. NEW PIN (t~225): Ines claims she peeked Greta=Fascist via R3 power -- YET Ines as R4 President nominated/accepted GRETA as Chancellor, and that desk enacted Fascist policy #2. If her peek is true, she handed a known Fascist the chancellorship; either the peek is fiction or Ines wanted the F policy. Demanded she reconcile R4 nomination with her own peek. Watch for 'timing' dodge. Otto's burned-ammo point vs Greta: noted, unfalsifiable both ways; outcome-based pins are what matter. MY VOTE RECORD: transcript shows I FORFEITED R5 vote (t=53). NEVER claim I voted Nein -- checkable lie. TOMAS: cleared via t=221 consistent L-L/burned-L matching Greta's publish. Do NOT re-litigate Tomas R5. NADIA: committed t=2 to full disclosure; never applied retroactively to own R3 desk (F-F receipt claimed). OWES ME: exact R3 received pair + burn. If deflects to Rosa, press HER cards again. ROSA: R3 peek-target never named. OTTO: double-standard pin unanswered (R4 'confirmations clear nothing' vs R5 Ja resting on Greta's uncheckable confirmation). INES also owes: phantom-disclosure retraction (t=32). ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; deck count; lib-clears-nobody; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Greta joint accountability R4; my forfeit answer; Ja-voter disclosures demand; endorsed Boris's Tomas trap. NEXT: Nadia R3 cards; Otto double-standard; Greta owes Nadia peek-pin (unanswered twice).

STATE: R5 done, 3L/2F, tracker 0. NEXT PRESIDENT: Nadia (committed t=72 to live full-draw announcement -- HOLD HER TO IT LIVE). DESKS PUBLISHED: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burned L)->Nadia confirms F-F (t=127). Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta F-F (t=64). Greta R5 L-F-L(burned F)->Tomas L-L (t=89). CLEARED-by-consistency: Tomas. UNPUBLISHED DESKS: Boris R1 (asked THIS turn), Lena/my R2. OPEN PINS: - Boris: owes R1 draw+burn (my ask, unanswered). - Ines: owes retraction of t=32 phantom 'on record' disclosure; owes reconciliation of her own 'Greta=FASCIST' peek with having NOMINATED Greta in R4 (desk enacted F#2) -- if peek true she armed fascists, if false she fabricated exit. - Otto: answered my double-standard pin t=95 (conduct-not-content); drop it. - Greta: owes answer to Nadia's self-binding Nein-on-Ines-slates demand (t=80) -- twice asked, silent. - Pavel: never held office, zero peeks, spends beats coaching others' confirmations; Lena named him for Ines's peek, Ines skipped him -> supports Ines-fabrication theory. MY RECORD: R2 chancellor under Lena, enacted LIB. FORFEITED R5 vote (t=53) -- NEVER claim I voted Nein, checkable. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; my forfeit explanation; Tomas trap endorsement; Ja-voter disclosure demands; Otto double-standard. NEXT IF ASKED MY R2 HAND: I disclosed it on record in R2 per Rosa's t=38 reference -- restate only what matches that reference, do not invent specifics.

STATE: R6 open floor pre-nomination. NEXT PRES: Nadia (t=72 committed live full-draw announcement -- HOLD LIVE). 3L/2F, tracker 0, draw pile 2 -> NEXT DRAW FORCES RESHAUFFLE; post-shuffle card-count claims unverifiable, live 3-card disclosure is only audit left. DESKS PUBLISHED: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burn L)->Nadia confirms F-F(t127); Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta F-F(t64); Greta R5 L-F-L(burn F)->Tomas L-L(t89). Tomas cleared-by-consistency. UNPUBLISHED: Boris R1 (asked, no answer), Lena/my R2. OPEN PINS: - Boris: owes R1 draw+burn. - Ines: phantom 'on record' disclosure t=32 + reconcile own 'Greta=FASCIST' peek vs NOMINATING her R4 (desk made F#2). - Greta: twice silent on Nadia's self-binding Nein-on-Ines-slates demand (t=80). - Pavel: never held office, zero peeks, coaches others' confirmations; Lena named him for Ines's peek, Ines skipped him -> fabrication theory support. MY RECORD: R2 chanc under Lena, LIB enacted. FORFEITED R5 vote (t=53) -- never claim Nein, checkable. NEW THIS TURN: asked Nadia to state intended nominee BEFORE nominating; flagged reshuffle makes live disclosure the last real audit. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; my forfeit; Tomas trap endorsement; Ja-voter disclosure demands; Otto double-standard. IF ASKED MY R2 HAND: restated only what Rosa t=38 referenced; invent nothing.

STATE: R6 open floor pre-nomination. NEXT PRES: Nadia (t=72 committed live full-draw announcement -- HOLD LIVE). 3L/2F, tracker 0, draw pile 2 -> NEXT DRAW FORCES RESHAUFFLE; post-shuffle card-count claims unverifiable, live 3-card disclosure is only audit left. DESKS PUBLISHED: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burn L)->Nadia confirms received F-F(t127); Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta F-F(t64); Greta R5 L-F-L(burn F)->Tomas L-L(t89). Tomas cleared-by-consistency. UNPUBLISHED: Boris R1 (asked, no answer), Lena/my R2. NEW THIS TURN (said): corroboration hole -- Nadia's confirm covers only the PASSED PAIR, not Rosa's claimed L burn; a fascist Pres drawing F-F-L burns the L identically, so mutual confirmation is consistent with guilt too. Asked Nadia yes/no whether t=72 full-draw commitment stands for THIS round pre-nomination. Re-flagged Boris R1 debt. OPEN PINS: - Boris: owes R1 draw+burn. - Ines: phantom 'on record' disclosure t=32 + reconcile own 'Greta=FASCIST' peek vs NOMINATING her R4 (desk made F#2). - Greta: twice silent on Nadia's self-binding Nein-on-Ines-slates demand (t=80). - Pavel: never held office, zero peeks, coaches others' confirmations; Lena named him for Ines's peek, Ines skipped him -> fabrication theory support. MY RECORD: R2 chanc under Lena, LIB enacted. FORFEITED R5 vote (t=53) -- never claim Nein, checkable. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; my forfeit; Tomas trap endorsement; Ja-voter disclosure demands; Otto double-standard; Otto-co-governor-point partially mine now extended via burn-hole. IF ASKED MY R2 HAND: restated only what Rosa t=38 referenced; invent nothing.

STATE: R6 open floor pre-nomination. NEXT PRES: Nadia (t=72 committed live full-draw announcement -- HOLD LIVE). 3L/2F, tracker 0, draw pile 2 -> NEXT DRAW FORCES RESHAUFFLE; post-shuffle card-count claims unverifiable, live 3-card disclosure is only audit left. DESKS PUBLISHED: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burn L)->Nadia confirms received F-F(t127); Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta F-F(t64); Greta R5 L-F-L(burn F)->Tomas L-L(t89). Tomas cleared-by-consistency. UNPUBLISHED: Boris R1 (asked, no answer), Lena/my R2. CORROBORATION HOLE (said): Nadia's confirm covers only PASSED PAIR, not Rosa's claimed L burn -- fascist Pres drawing F-F-L burns L identically; mutual confirmation consistent with guilt too. Asked Nadia yes/no whether t=72 full-draw commitment stands THIS round. NEW THIS TURN: asked Rosa directly to pre-commit, BEFORE the vote, to publishing her full received hand + burn immediately on enactment (Greta-style), no retroactive editing. If she hedges, that plus Nadia skipping Boris/Otto/me is my Nein case. OPEN PINS: - Boris: owes R1 draw+burn. - Ines: phantom 'on record' disclosure t=32 + reconcile 'Greta=FASCIST' peek vs NOMINATING her R4 (desk made F#2). - Greta: twice silent on Nadia's self-binding Nein-on-Ines-slates demand (t=80). - Pavel: never held office, zero peeks, coaches others' confirmations; Lena named him for Ines's peek, Ines skipped him -> fabrication theory support. MY RECORD: R2 chanc under Lena, LIB enacted. FORFEITED R5 vote (t=53) -- never claim Nein, checkable. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; my forfeit; Tomas trap endorsement; Ja-voter disclosure demands; Otto double-standard; Otto-co-governor/burn-hole extension. IF ASKED MY R2 HAND: restated only what Rosa t=38 referenced; invent nothing.

STATE: R6 debate. NEXT PRES: Nadia, CHANC nom: Rosa. 3L/2F, tracker 0, draw pile 2 -> NEXT DRAW FORCES RESHAUFFLE; post-shuffle card-count claims unverifiable, live disclosure only audit. NEW THIS TURN (said): Rosa's t=2 pledge (announce both received cards pre-enactment) fully covers chancellor side ONLY once enacted policy is public -- accepted. Remaining hole is PRESIDENT side: pressed Nadia yes/no whether t=72 full-draw live announcement stands for THIS round's draw; no answer yet. Also put on record: R3's Fascist policy came from exactly this pair reversed (Rosa pres / Nadia chanc); if this slate passes and an F lands, both halves of that desk are the suspects. DESKS PUBLISHED: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burn L)->Nadia confirms received F-F(t127); Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta F-F(t64); Greta R5 L-F-L(burn F)->Tomas L-L(t89). Tomas cleared-by-consistency. UNPUBLISHED: Boris R1, Lena/my R2. CORROBORATION HOLE: Nadia's confirm covers PASSED PAIR not Rosa's claimed L burn -- fascist Pres drawing F-F-L burns L identically; consistent with guilt too. OPEN PINS: - Rosa: owes R3 peek result (Boris pressing, don't duplicate). - Boris: owes R1 draw+burn. - Ines: phantom 'on record' disclosure t=32 + 'Greta=FASCIST' peek vs nominating her R4. - Greta: twice silent on self-binding Nein-on-Ines-slates demand (t=80). - Pavel: never held office, zero peeks, coaches others; Lena named him for Ines's peek, Ines skipped him. MY RECORD: R2 chanc under Lena, LIB enacted. FORFEITED R5 vote (t=53) -- never claim Nein, checkable. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; silent-four; blanket-Ja unwithdrawn; false-'nobody-can-verify'; burned-F math; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Tomas trap endorsement; Ja-voter disclosure demands; Otto double-standard; co-governor/burn-hole extension; Rosa pre-commit ask (now answered). IF ASKED MY R2 HAND: restate only what Rosa t=38 referenced; invent nothing.

STATE: R6 vote pending. Nadia pres / Rosa chanc nom. 3L/2F, tracker 0/3. Draw pile 2 -> THIS DESK DRAWS 3 = forced reshuffle; all pre-shuffle hand claims become permanently unverifiable after tonight. If F#3 enacts here, Hitler-chancellor win becomes LIVE (3+ F policies). DESKS PUBLISHED: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burn L); Nadia confirms received F-F (t127) -- but confirm covers passed PAIR only, F-F-L burn-L identical for guilty pres. Ines R4 F-F-F -> Greta F-F(t64). Greta R5 L-F-L(burnF) -> Tomas L-L(t89), cleared-by-consistency. UNPUBLISHED HANDS: Boris R1, Lena/me R2 (only restate what Rosa t=38 referenced; invent nothing). OPEN PINS: - Nadia: UNANSWERED -- who she picks as next President if F#3 fires (Otto t=16, now me too). Also owes: does t=72 full-draw live announcement cover THIS round's draw? - Rosa: owes R3 peek result (Boris pressing; skip). - Boris: owes R1 draw+burn (my ask t=135, Nadia echoed t=37). - Ines: phantom 'on record' disclosure + Greta=FASCIST peek yet nominated her R4. - Greta: silent on self-binding Nein-on-Ines-slates (t=80). - Pavel: never held office, zero peeks, coaches others. MY RECORD: R2 chanc under Lena, LIB enacted. FORFEITED R5 vote (t=53) -- NEVER claim I voted Nein, checkable. My t=72 lock: unannounced cards => flip Nein + name him; window closed before vote, explained at t=49. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; blanket-Ja; burned-F math; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Tomas trap endorsement; Otto double-standard; co-governor corroboration hole; Rosa pre-commit (answered t=21); R3 pair-reversal warning; Nadia draw-announcement yes/no.

STATE: R6 vote pending Nadia/Rosa. 3L/2F, tracker 0/3. Draw pile 2 -> forced reshuffle tonight; all pre-shuffle hand claims become permanently unverifiable after. If F#3 enacts HERE, Hitler-chancellor win goes LIVE. DESKS: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burnL); Nadia confirms recv F-F (covers passed PAIR only). Ines R4 F-F-F -> Greta F-F. Greta R5 L-F-L -> Tomas L-L, cleared-by-consistency. UNPUBLISHED HANDS: Boris R1 (owes me+Nadia); Lena/me R2 (only restate what Rosa t38 referenced). PINS: Nadia UNANSWERED -- F#3 succession pick (Otto t16, me t2); this turn declared silence-before-vote = answer. Rosa R3 peek result (Boris pressing). Ines phantom 'on record' disclosure + Greta=FASCIST peek yet nominated her R4. Greta silent on self-binding Nein-on-Ines-slates (t80); NOW ALSO ASKED: name Ja-conditions, since locked Nein feeds tracker toward auto-policy from unmodelable shuffled deck. Pavel: never held office, zero peeks, coaches others. MY RECORD: R2 chanc under Lena, LIB enacted. FORFEITED R5 vote (t53) -- NEVER claim I voted Nein. t72 lock spent, explained t49. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; blanket-Ja; burned-F math; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Tomas trap endorsement; Otto double-standard; co-governor corroboration hole; Rosa pre-commit; R3 pair-reversal warning; Nadia draw-announcement yes/no; reshuffle-hides-all-hands.

STATE: R6 vote pending Nadia/Rosa. 3L/2F, tracker 0/3. Draw pile 2 -> forced reshuffle tonight; all pre-shuffle hand claims permanently unverifiable after. If F#3 enacts HERE, Hitler-chancellor win goes LIVE. DESKS: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burnL); Nadia confirms recv F-F (covers passed PAIR only). Ines R4 F-F-F -> Greta F-F. Greta R5 L-F-L -> Tomas L-L, cleared-by-consistency. UNPUBLISHED HANDS: Boris R1 (owes me+Nadia); Lena/me R2. PINS: Nadia UNANSWERED x2 -- F#3 succession pick (Otto t16, me t44, re-pressed this turn); she answered Rosa+echoed-Boris-ask instead. Rosa R3 peek result (Boris pressing). Ines phantom 'on record' + Greta=FASCIST peek yet nominated her R4. Greta silent on self-binding Nein-on-Ines-slates + Ja-conditions. Pavel: never held office, zero peeks, coaches others. MY RECORD: R2 chanc under Lena, LIB enacted. FORFEITED R5 vote (t53) -- NEVER claim I voted Nein. t72 lock spent, explained t49. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; blanket-Ja; burned-F math; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Tomas trap endorsement; Otto double-standard; co-governor corroboration hole; Rosa pre-commit; R3 pair-reversal warning; Nadia draw-announcement yes/no; reshuffle-hides-all-hands.

STATE: R6 vote pending Nadia/Rosa. 3L/2F, tracker 0/3. Draw pile 2 -> forced reshuffle tonight; all pre-shuffle hand claims permanently unverifiable after. If F#3 enacts HERE, Hitler-chancellor win goes LIVE. DESKS: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burnL); Nadia confirms recv F-F (covers passed PAIR only). Ines R4 F-F-F -> Greta F-F. Greta R5 L-F-L -> Tomas L-L, cleared-by-consistency. UNPUBLISHED HANDS: Boris R1 (owes me+Nadia); Lena/me R2. PINS: Nadia UNANSWERED x3 -- F#3 succession pick (Otto t16, me t44+this turn). She answered Rosa+Boris instead = selective dodge. Ultimatum issued THIS turn: answer or Nein. Otto t3: demands Rosa announce BOTH received cards + intended burn pre-enactment -- I endorsed, awaiting Rosa acceptance. Rosa R3 peek result (Boris pressing). Ines phantom 'on record' + Greta=FASCIST peek yet nominated her R4. Greta silent on self-binding Nein-on-Ines-slates + Ja-conditions. Pavel: never held office, zero peeks, coaches others. MY RECORD: R2 chanc under Lena, LIB enacted. FORFEITED R5 vote (t53) -- NEVER claim I voted Nein. t72 lock spent, explained t49. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; blanket-Ja; burned-F math; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Tomas trap endorsement; Otto double-standard; co-governor corroboration hole; Rosa pre-commit; R3 pair-reversal warning; Nadia draw-announcement yes/no; reshuffle-hides-all-hands.

STATE: R6 vote pending Nadia/Rosa. 3L/2F, tracker 0/3. Draw pile 2 <3 => RESHUFFLE HAPPENS BEFORE THIS DRAW: all pre-shuffle hand claims unverifiable going forward; tonight's draw is fresh-deck, past corroboration proves nothing about it. If F#3 enacts HERE, Hitler-chancellor win goes LIVE (Rosa suspect #1). DESKS: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burnL); Nadia recv F-F corroborated t127. Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta F-F. Greta R5 L-F-L->Tomas L-L cleared. UNPUBLISHED HANDS: Boris R1 (owes me+Nadia); Lena/me R2. PINS UPDATE: Nadia ANSWERED F#3 succession t246-batch: picks Boris IF F#3 fires under this slate. Timing = only after my ultimatum + 3 dodges; conditional, post-hoc. NEW PRESS: why Boris (owes unpublished R1 hand, unverified) over Tomas (cleared-by-consistency)? President-pick of an unpublished-desk player = potential gift if Boris fascist. Demand she justify or swap to a cleared player, and commit BEFORE vote not after. ROSA OWES: card-for-card confirmation of R3 hand matching Nadia's receipt (Boris pressing too), PLUS acceptance of Otto's protocol: announce BOTH received cards + intended burn BEFORE enacting. No acceptance yet = my Nein. INES: phantom 'on record' claim + Greta=FASCIST peek yet nominated her R4. Greta silent on self-binding Nein-on-Ines-slates + Ja-conditions. Pavel: never held office, zero peeks, coaches others. MY RECORD: R2 chanc under Lena, LIB enacted. FORFEITED R5 vote (t53) -- NEVER claim I voted Nein. t72 lock spent, explained t49. VOTE PLAN: Ja ONLY if Rosa confirms hand + accepts pre-announcement; else Nein. Say this explicitly. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; blanket-Ja; burned-F math; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Tomas trap endorsement; Otto double-standard; co-governor corroboration hole; Rosa pre-commit; R3 pair-reversal warning; Nadia draw-announcement yes/no; reshuffle-hides-all-hands.

STATE: R6 vote pending Nadia/Rosa. 3L/2F, tracker 0/3. Draw pile 2 => RESHUFFLE before tonight's draw; all pre-shuffle hand claims unverifiable going forward. If F#3 enacts HERE, Hitler-chancellor win goes LIVE. DESKS: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burnL) CONFIRMED t102 matching Nadia receipt; Rosa ACCEPTED Otto protocol (announce both cards + intended burn pre-enact). Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta F-F. Greta R5 L-F-L->Tomas L-L cleared by arithmetic (Boris t102). PINS: Nadia answered F#3 succession = BORIS if F#3 fires under this slate (only after my ultimatum+3 dodges). MY LIVE PRESS: why Boris (unpublished R1 desk) over Tomas (cleared)? Justify or swap to Tomas BEFORE vote closes. Nobody has answered yet. UNPUBLISHED HANDS: Boris R1 (owes me+Nadia); Lena/me R2. INES: phantom 'on record' + Greta=FASCIST peek yet nominated her R4; Greta silent on self-binding Nein-on-Ines. Pavel: never held office, coaches others. MY RECORD: R2 chanc under Lena, LIB enacted. FORFEITED R5 vote (t53) -- never claim I voted Nein. t72 lock spent, explained t49. VOTE PLAN: Ja conditions MET (Rosa confirm + pre-announce accept). Voting Ja unless Nadia's Boris pick changes calculus. ALREADY SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; blanket-Ja; burned-F math; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Tomas trap endorsement; Otto double-standard; co-governor corroboration hole; Rosa pre-commit; R3 pair-reversal warning; reshuffle-hides-all-hands; Nadia dodge-then-answer timing.

STATE: R6 vote pending Nadia/Rosa. 3L/2F, tracker 0/3. Draw pile 2 => RESHUFFLE tonight; pre-shuffle hand claims unverifiable after. If F#3 enacts HERE, Hitler-chancellor win goes LIVE. DESKS: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burnL) CONFIRMED vs Nadia receipt; accepted Otto protocol (announce both cards + burn pre-enact). Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta F-F. Greta R5 cleared by arithmetic (Boris t102). MY OPEN QUESTION (UNANSWERED): Nadia's F#3 succession pick = BORIS -- why Boris (R1 desk unpublished, owes me+Nadia) over Tomas (cleared)? Asked t2 this window, dodged all game until forced. Justify or swap to Tomas BEFORE close. Still zero answer. NEW THIS WINDOW: Greta t3 flips lens to ROSA -- R3 President with free pick CHOSE Nadia as chanc, same gov that enacted F#1; Nadia's confession came 3 rounds late and her first use was nominating Rosa back. Pair-reversal pattern now has two framings; watch who Greta presses. INES: phantom 'on record' + Greta=FASCIST peek claim yet nominated her R4. Pavel: never held office, coaches others. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB enacted. FORFEITED R5 vote (t53) -- never claim Nein. VOTE PLAN: Ja locked (Rosa confirmed + pre-announce pledge). Boris pick noted but not vote-blocking; demand stays on record for post-vote accountability. SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; blanket-Ja math; burned-F arithmetic; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Tomas trap endorsement; Otto double-standard; co-governor hole; reshuffle-hides-hands; dodge-then-answer timing.

STATE: R6 vote pending Nadia/Rosa -> VOTED JA. 3L/2F, tracker 0/3. Draw pile 2 => RESHUFFLE tonight; pre-shuffle hand claims unverifiable after. If F#3 enacts HERE, Hitler-chancellor win goes LIVE. DESKS: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burnL) CONFIRMED vs Nadia receipt t=102 + full pledge (both cards+burn pre-enact). Nadia R3 F-F receipt published t=127. Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta F-F. Greta R5 L-F-L->Tomas L-L, cleared arithmetically (Boris t102). Tomas R5 matched. NADIA SUCCESSION ANSWER: BORIS (t=79) -- my objection stands: Boris = only unpublished desk (R1), owes me+Nadia; Tomas is cleared. Post-vote accountability item. OPEN QUESTIONS OWED ME: Boris R1 draw/burn (asked R5, echoed by Nadia t=37) -- STILL UNPUBLISHED. Nadia owes justification of Boris-over-Tomas pick. SUSPECTS: Pavel -- never held office, coaches others' asks (R4,R5,R6). Ines -- phantom 'on record', Greta=FASCIST peek yet nominated her R4. Greta t=36 flipped lens to ROSA's free-pick choice of Nadia in R3 -- pair-reversal framing, second version. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB enacted. FORFEITED R5 vote (t53) -- never claim Nein there; my line: window closed before vote landed, standard stands. VOTE HISTORY: all Ja except forfeit R5. SAID (no repeats): never-in-office-five; blanket-Ja math; burned-F arithmetic; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Tomas trap endorsement; Otto double-standard; co-governor hole; reshuffle-hides-hands; dodge-then-answer timing; Rosa confirmation+pledge lands Ja / Boris pick doesn't.

STATE: R6 done -- Nadia/Rosa LIB enacted, 4L/2F, tracker 0/3. DRAW PILE NOW 9 => RESHUFFLE ALREADY HAPPENED; all pre-shuffle hand claims (Boris R1, Ines/Greta R4) now UNVERIFIABLE forever. ONE more F policy => F#3 live => Hitler-chancellor win condition ACTIVE. DESKS: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burnL) CONFIRMED vs Nadia t=102 + full pledge, pledge LANDED R6. Nadia R3 F-F published t=127. Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta F-F. Greta R5 L-F-L->Tomas L-L, arithmetically cleared (Boris t102). Tomas R5 matched. NADIA SUCCESSION ANSWER: BORIS (t=79) -- objection stands: only unpublished desk + reshuffle now erases any check; Tomas was cleared. STILL OWED. OWED ME: Boris R1 draw/burn -- asked R5, echoed by Nadia t=37, never given; now moot-but-accounting still matters. Nadia owes Boris-over-Tomas justification. SUSPECTS: Pavel -- never held office all game, coaches others' asks (R4,R5,R6). Ines -- phantom 'on record', Greta=FASCIST peek yet nominated her R4. Greta t=36 pair-reversal framing onto Rosa. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB. FORFEITED R5 vote (t53) -- line: window closed before vote landed, standard stands. Vote history: all Ja except forfeit. SAID(no repeat): never-in-office-five; blanket-Ja math; burned-F arithmetic; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Tomas trap endorsement; Otto double-standard; co-governor hole; reshuffle-hides-hands; dodge-then-answer timing; Rosa pledge lands Ja / Boris pick doesn't. NEW THIS TURN: Rosa credit + 'no unvetted chancellor from here' warning (F3 one away).

STATE: R6 done, Nadia/Rosa LIB enacted, 4L/2F, tracker 0/3. RESHUFFLE HAPPENED (draw pile 9) => all pre-shuffle hand claims unverifiable forever. ONE more F policy => F#3 live => Hitler-as-chancellor WIN CONDITION ACTIVE next F enactment. DESKS: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burnL) confirmed vs Nadia; Nadia R3 F-F published; Ines R4 F-F-F -> Greta F-F; Greta R5 L-F-L -> Tomas L-L arithmetically cleared; Tomas R5 matched. SUSPECTS: Pavel (never held office, coaches others' asks R4-R6); Ines (phantom 'on record', Greta peek yet nominated her); Greta (t=36 pair-reversal framing onto Rosa; t=1-2 attacks on Nadia/Rosa while her own R4 govt enacted F). OWED: Nadia owes Boris-over-Tomas succession justification (answered BORIS t=79, objection stands). Boris R1 draw/burn never given, now moot via reshuffle but accounting matters. SAID(already): never-in-office-five; blanket-Ja math; burned-F arithmetic; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Tomas trap endorsement; Otto double-standard; co-governor hole; reshuffle-hides-hands; dodge-then-answer timing; Rosa pledge lands Ja / Boris pick doesn't. NEW THIS TURN (t~254): gave Rosa credit for pledge landing R6; warned NO unvetted chancellors once F#3 fires -- every chancellor nominee from here needs a pre-vote published-draw pledge. Echoed Greta's ask that Otto commit to announcing exact draw+burn before passing. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB. Forfeited R5 vote (window closed). Vote history all Ja except forfeit.

STATE: R6 done, Nadia/Rosa LIB enacted, 4L/2F, tracker 0/3. RESHUFFLE happened (draw pile 9) => all pre-shuffle hand claims unverifiable forever. ONE more F policy => F#3 live => Hitler-as-chancellor WIN CONDITION ACTIVE next F enactment. DESKS: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burnL); Nadia R3 F-F published; Ines R4 F-F-F -> Greta F-F; Greta R5 L-F-L -> Tomas L-L arithmetically cleared. SUSPECTS: Pavel (never in office, coaches others' asks R4-R6); Ines (phantom 'on record', Greta peek yet nominated her); Greta (t=36 pair-reversal framing onto Rosa; attacks Nadia/Rosa while own R4 govt enacted F). OWED: OTTO owes Rosa succession answer (asked t~258, unanswered) -- pressed him this turn: name pick NOW, same pre-vote standard we forced on Nadia. Nadia broke her t=72 pledge (Lena caught it, t~257): no announced draw/burn before passing -- but she delivered LIB so cost is low + reshuffle buries it; noted, moved on. SAID(already): never-in-office-five; blanket-Ja math; burned-F arithmetic; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Tomas trap endorsement; Otto double-standard; co-governor hole; reshuffle-hides-hands; dodge-then-answer timing; Rosa pledge lands Ja / Boris pick doesn't; gave Rosa credit R6; NO unvetted chancellors once F#3 fires -- every nominee needs pre-vote published-draw pledge; echoed Greta's ask re Otto announcing exact draw+burn before passing. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB. Forfeited R5 vote (window closed). Vote history all Ja except forfeit.

STATE: R6 done, Nadia/Rosa LIB, 4L/2F, tracker 0/3, RESHUFFLE (draw 9/discard 2) => ALL pre-shuffle hand claims (Boris ledger, Greta-Nadia spat, Rosa R3 burn story) permanently unfalsifiable -- declared dead, pivot forward. ONE more F => 3F => HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. DESKS: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burnL); Nadia R3 F-F; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L->Tomas L-L cleared. SUSPECTS: Pavel (never in office, coaches asks R4-R6); Ines (phantom 'on record'); Greta (pair-reversal onto Rosa, attacks govt she served in); Otto (untested, dodging succession Q). OWED: OTTO still owes Rosa succession pick (asked t~41/t~258, unanswered) -- re-pressed this turn alongside Pavel's t=1 ask. SAID(all): never-in-office math; blanket-Ja; burned-F arithmetic; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Tomas trap endorsement; Otto double-standard; co-governor hole; reshuffle-hides-hands; dodge-then-answer timing; Rosa credit R6; no-unvetted-chancellors-post-F#3; echoed Greta's announce-exact-draw ask. NEW THIS TURN: declared all pre-shuffle hand litigation DEAD (Boris ledger included); my Ja now conditional on BOTH seats pledging published draw+burn BEFORE the vote; named Pavel+Otto as the only two never-tested players -- demanded Pavel volunteer his own pledge instead of coaching. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB. Forfeited R5 vote. All other votes Ja.

STATE: R6 done, Nadia/Rosa LIB, 4L/2F, tracker 0/3, RESHUFFLE happened => ALL pre-shuffle hand claims permanently unfalsifiable. ONE more F => 3F => HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. DESKS: Rosa R3 F-F-L(burnL); Nadia R3 F-F; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L->Tomas L-L cleared. SUSPECTS: Pavel (never in office, coaches asks, t=3 spent floor prosecuting BORIS'S DEAD R1 LEDGER instead of volunteering his own pledge -- engaged exactly the litigation I declared dead); Ines (phantom 'on record'); Greta (pair-reversal onto Rosa); Otto (untested, STILL owes Rosa succession pick from t~41/t~258). OWED: Otto -> Rosa succession pick (unanswered twice). Pavel -> own announce-draw+burn pledge (asked last turn, answered with Boris attack instead). SAID(all): never-in-office math; blanket-Ja; burned-F arithmetic; Pavel coaching; Ines phantom/peek-timing; Tomas trap endorsement; Otto double-standard; co-governor hole; reshuffle-hides-hands; Rosa credit R6; no-unvetted-chancellors-post-F#3; conditional-Ja pledge demand; named Pavel+Otto as only untested players. NEW THIS TURN: called out Pavel's floor spent on dead ledger = dodge; backed Nadia's point that Lena's process-prosecutions produced zero Fascist findings while she never asks desks what they did with cards. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB. Forfeited R5 vote. All other votes Ja.

STATE: R6 done, Nadia/Rosa LIB, 4L/2F, tracker 0/3, RESHUFFLE => all pre-shuffle hand claims unfalsifiable forever. NEXT F = 3F = HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. Veto NOT live (needs 5F). DESKS(all published): Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL; Nadia R3 F-F receipt; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF ->Tomas L-L; Tomas L-L burnL; Boris R1 L-F-L burnF ->Rosa L-L (published only AFTER reshuffle buried it - Pavel t=79 flagged). SUSPECTS: Pavel (never in office, perpetual prosecutor, dodged own-pledge asks by attacking Boris's dead ledger); Ines (phantom 'on record' claim, peek-timing); Greta (sat on own pair 3 rounds, pair-reversal onto Rosa/Nadia); Otto (untested, owes Rosa succession pick since t=41, also owes chancellor-nominee-pool per Greta t=25 -- accepted draw/burn pledge though). OWED: Otto -> succession pick if 3rd F fires under his desk (Rosa t=41, Pavel t=48, unanswered). Pavel -> MY ask this turn: announce draw+burn pledge or justify refusal. SAID(all): never-in-office math; blanket-Ja pattern; burned-F arithmetic; Pavel coaching endorsements (t=72 trap); Ines phantom 'on record'; Otto double-standard R4-vs-Greta-confirm; co-governor mutual-vouch hole (Nadia/Rosa); reshuffle-hides-hands clock; Rosa R6 credit; no-unvetted-chancellors post-3F; conditional-Ja pledge demands; named Pavel+Otto as only untested; Boris last-unpublished-desk (he then self-published); Nadia succession=Boris challenged as picking unverified desk. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB enacted. Forfeited R5 vote (window closed). All other votes Ja. Liberal, nothing to hide. NEXT: watch Otto's nominee + whether he answers succession pick; if Pavel pledges, test consistency later; if 3rd F fires, Hitler-win logic dominates all nominations.

STATE: R6 done, Nadia/Rosa LIB, 4L/2F, tracker 0/3, RESHUFFLE => all pre-shuffle hand claims unfalsifiable forever. NEXT F = 3F = HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. Veto NOT live (needs 5F). DESKS(all published): Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL; Nadia R3 F-F receipt; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF ->Tomas L-L; Tomas L-L burnL; Boris R1 L-F-L burnF ->Rosa L-L (published only AFTER reshuffle buried it - Pavel t=79 flagged). SUSPECTS: Pavel (never in office, perpetual prosecutor, dodged own-pledge asks by attacking Boris's dead ledger); Ines (phantom 'on record' claim, peek-timing); Greta (sat on own pair 3 rounds, pair-reversal onto Rosa/Nadia); Otto (untested, owes Rosa succession pick since t=41, also owes chancellor-nominee-pool per Greta t=25 -- accepted draw/burn pledge though). OWED: Otto -> succession pick if 3rd F fires under his desk (Rosa t=41, Pavel t=48, Boris re-pressed t=3, unanswered). Pavel -> MY ask t=1: draw+burn announce pledge or justify refusal, unanswered. SAID(all): never-in-office math; blanket-Ja pattern; burned-F arithmetic; Pavel coaching endorsements trap; Ines phantom 'on record'; Otto double-standard R4-vs-Greta; co-governor mutual-vouch hole (Nadia/Rosa); reshuffle-hides-hands clock; Rosa R6 credit; no-unvetted-chancellors post-3F; named Pavel+Otto as only untested desks; Boris last-unpublished-desk (he then self-published); Nadia succession=Boris challenged. NEW THIS TURN: stated my hard voting rule -- Ja ONLY for desks signed to announce-pair-before-enact + president-confirm-receipt; unsigned desk gets my Nein even at tracker cost (auto-policy can't seat Hitler, a 3rd F under unpledged desk can); demanded Otto publish succession pick BEFORE drawing, not after. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB. Forfeited R5 vote. All other votes Ja. Liberal, nothing to hide. NEXT: if Otto names successor from clean pool, hold him to it; watch whether Pavel ever signs; if 3rd F fires anywhere, Hitler-win logic overrides all other analysis.

STATE: R6 done, Nadia/Rosa LIB, 4L/2F, tracker 0/3, RESHUFFLE => all pre-shuffle hand claims unfalsifiable forever. NEXT F = 3F = HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. Veto NOT live (needs 5F). One more LIBeral wins it for us. DESKS(all published): Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL; Nadia R3 F-F receipt; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF ->Tomas L-L; Tomas L-L burnL; Boris R1 L-F-L burnF ->Rosa L-L (published only AFTER reshuffle buried it - Pavel t=79 flagged). SUSPECTS: Pavel (never in office, perpetual prosecutor, refused to sign disclose pledge through 3 windows -- now treating refusal-as-answer per my t=this turn); Ines (phantom 'on record' claim, peek-timing); Greta (sat on own pair 3 rounds, pair-reversal onto Rosa/Nadia); Otto (untested, owes succession pick since t=41 -- 3rd ask made this turn). OWED: Otto -> succession pick if 3rd F fires under his desk (Rosa t=41, Pavel t=48, Boris re-pressed, MY 3rd ask this turn, unanswered). Pavel -> sign announce pledge or stay convicted-by-silence. SAID(all): never-in-office math; blanket-Ja pattern; burned-F arithmetic; endorsements trap; Ines phantom 'on record'; Otto double-standard; co-governor mutual-vouch hole; reshuffle-hides-hands clock; Rosa R6 credit; no-unvetted-chancellors post-3F; named Pavel+Otto as only untested desks; Boris last-unpublished-desk (he self-published); Nadia succession=Boris challenged; Pavel refusal-as-answer + Otto 3rd succession ask (this turn). ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB. Forfeited R5 vote. All other votes Ja. Liberal, nothing to hide. NEXT: hold Otto to whatever succession pick he names -- clean pool only (Boris/Lena/me/Greta/Tomas?); watch if Pavel ever signs; if 3rd F fires anywhere, Hitler-win logic overrides everything.

STATE: R6 done, Nadia/Rosa LIB, 4L/2F, tracker 0/3, RESHUFFLE => all pre-shuffle hand claims unfalsifiable forever. NEXT F = 3F = HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. Veto NOT live. One more LIBeral wins it. DESKS(published): Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL; Nadia R3 F-F receipt; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF ->Tomas L-L; Tomas L-L burnL; Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L (published post-reshuffle, Pavel t=79 flagged). SUSPECTS: Pavel (never in office, refused disclose pledge 3 windows => convicted-by-silence per my t=2); Ines (phantom 'on record', peek-timing); Greta (pair-reversal onto Rosa/Nadia); Otto (untested, owes succession pick, dodged Lena+Rosa+Boris+me). OWED: Otto -> succession pick if 3rd F fires under his desk (unanswered through 4 asks incl. Lena t=3); Pavel -> sign pledge; Nadia -> MY NEW ASK: pre-commit 3F successor BEFORE Rosa vote, clean pool only, tracker 0 makes it free. Boris challenged her pick=him earlier -- hold her to naming someone defensible. SAID(all): never-in-office math; blanket-Ja pattern; burned-F arithmetic; endorsements trap; Ines phantom claim; Otto double-standard; co-governor mutual-vouch hole; reshuffle-hides-hands clock; Rosa R6 credit; no-unvetted-chancellors post-3F; named Pavel+Otto untested; Pavel refusal-as-answer; Otto 3rd ask. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB. Forfeited R5 vote, rest Ja. Liberal. NEXT: if Nadia names successor, vet pool (Boris/Lena/me/Greta/Tomas ok; never Ines/Pavel/Otto/Rosa-if-suspect); watch Rosa's own pre-commit too; if 3rd F fires anywhere, Hitler-win logic overrides.

STATE: R6 done, Nadia/Rosa LIB, 4L/2F, tracker 0/3, RESHUFFLE => all pre-shuffle hand claims unfalsifiable forever. NEXT F = 3F = HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. Veto NOT live. One more LIB wins it. DESKS(published): Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL; Nadia R3 F-F receipt; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF ->Tomas L-L; Tomas L-L burnL; Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L (post-reshuffle pub, Pavel t=79 flagged). SUSPECTS: Pavel (never in office, refused disclose pledge 4 windows => convicted-by-silence); Ines (phantom 'on record', peek-timing); Greta (pair-reversal onto Rosa/Nadia); Otto (untested, succession pick NOW ANSWERED=Tomas). OTTO UPDATE t~now: picked Tomas as 3F successor. Tomas defensible: clean R5 desk L-L under Greta. Accept as testable; Otto still untested himself. OWED: Pavel -> sign announce-pair-and-burn pledge (still unanswered); Nadia -> MY ASK: pre-commit 3F successor BEFORE Rosa vote, clean pool only, tracker 0 makes it free; Boris challenged her earlier pick=him. SAID(all): never-in-office math; blanket-Ja pattern; burned-F arithmetic; endorsements trap; Ines phantom claim; Otto double-standard; co-governor mutual-vouch hole; reshuffle clock; Rosa R6 credit; no-unvetted-chancellors post-3F; named Pavel+Otto untested; Pavel refusal-as-answer; Otto 3 asks. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB. Forfeited R5 vote, rest Ja. Liberal. NEXT: vet any successor pool (Boris/Lena/me/Greta/Tomas ok; never Ines/Pavel/Otto/Rosa-if-suspect); watch Rosa's own pre-commit; if 3rd F fires anywhere, Hitler-win logic overrides.

STATE: R6 done, Nadia/Rosa LIB, 4L/2F, tracker 0/3, RESHUFFLE => all pre-shuffle hand claims unfalsifiable forever. NEXT F = 3F = HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. Veto NOT live. One more LIB wins it. ROTATION: Nadia(seat5) pres => NEXT PRES = OTTO(seat6). NEW ASK t=now: Otto must pre-commit R7 chancellor nominee BEFORE any campaigning, clean pool only (Boris/Lena/me/Greta/Tomas), never Ines/Pavel; Rosa term-limited out anyway. If Otto dodges or picks suspect pool => prime suspect. DESKS(published): Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL; Nadia R3 F-F receipt; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF ->Tomas L-L; Tomas L-L burnL; Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L (post-reshuffle pub). SUSPECTS: Pavel (never in office, refused announce-pair-and-burn pledge 4+ windows => convicted-by-silence); Ines (phantom 'on record', peek-timing); Otto (untested, NOW HOLDS NOMINATION POWER); Greta (pair-reversal onto Rosa/Nadia); Tomas DEFENSIBLE: clean R5 desk L-L under Greta, Otto naming him not damning. OWED: Pavel -> pledge signature (unanswered); Otto -> R7 nominee pre-commit (NEW); Nadia -> earlier 3F-successor ask (moot, presidency over). SAID(all): never-in-office math; blanket-Ja pattern; burned-F arithmetic; endorsements trap; Ines phantom claim; Otto double-standard + 3 asks; co-governor mutual-vouch hole; reshuffle clock; Rosa R6 credit; no-unvetted-chancellors post-3F; named Pavel+Otto untested; Pavel refusal-as-answer. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB. Forfeited R5 vote, rest Ja. Liberal. NEXT: hold Otto to nominee answer; if he names Ines/Pavel or stalls => escalate urgency 3; if 3rd F fires anywhere, Hitler-win logic overrides everything.

STATE: R6 done, Nadia/Rosa LIB, 4L/2F, tracker 0/3, RESHUFFLE => all pre-shuffle hand claims unfalsifiable forever. NEXT F = 3F = HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. Veto NOT live. One more LIB wins it. ROTATION: Nadia(seat5) pres => NEXT PRES = OTTO(seat6). OPEN ASKS: Otto -> justify Tomas succession pick + pre-commit R7 nominee from clean pool (Boris/Lena/me/Greta/Tomas), never Ines/Pavel/Rosa(term-lim); Pavel -> announce-pair-and-burn signature, refused 4+ windows, my Ja embargo stands; Tomas -> NEW ask t=now: accept/decline Otto's succession naming + sign standard. DESKS(published): Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL; Nadia R3 F-F receipt; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF ->Tomas L-L; Tomas L-L burnL; Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L (post-reshuffle pub). SUSPECTS: Pavel (never held office, refused pledge => convicted-by-silence); Ines (phantom 'on record', peek-timing); Otto (untested, holds gavel + nomination power); Greta (pair-reversal onto Rosa/Nadia); Tomas defensible if he signs. SAID(all): never-in-office math; blanket-Ja pattern; burned-F arithmetic; endorsements trap; Ines phantom claim; Otto double-standard; co-governor mutual-vouch hole; reshuffle clock; Rosa R6 credit; no-unvetted-chancellors post-3F; Pavel refusal-as-answer x2 (done, don't repeat). ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB. Forfeited R5 vote (window closed), rest Ja. Liberal. NEXT: watch Otto's R7 nominee -- suspect pool or stall => urgency 3; if 3rd F fires anywhere, Hitler-win logic overrides.

STATE: R6 done, Nadia/Rosa LIB, 4L/2F, tracker 0/3, RESHUFFLE => pre-shuffle hand claims unfalsifiable forever. NEXT F = 3F = HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. Veto NOT live. One more LIB wins it. ROTATION: Nadia(seat5) pres => NEXT PRES = OTTO(seat6). OPEN ASKS: Otto -> justify Tomas succession pick + pre-commit R7 nominee from clean pool (Boris/Lena/me/Greta/Tomas), never Ines/Pavel/Rosa(term-lim); Pavel -> announce-pair-and-burn signature, refused 4+ windows, my Ja embargo stands; Tomas -> accept/decline Otto's succession naming + sign standard. DESKS(published): Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL; Nadia R3 F-F receipt; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF ->Tomas L-L; Tomas L-L burnL; Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L (post-reshuffle pub). SUSPECTS: Pavel (never held office, refused pledge => convicted-by-silence); Ines (phantom 'on record', peek-timing); Otto (untested, holds gavel + nomination power); Greta (pair-reversal onto Rosa/Nadia); Tomas defensible if he signs. SAID(all): never-in-office math; blanket-Ja pattern; burned-F arithmetic; endorsements trap; Ines phantom claim; Otto double-standard; co-governor mutual-vouch hole; reshuffle clock; Rosa R6 credit; no-unvetted-chancellors post-3F; Pavel refusal-as-answer x2 (done, don't repeat). Nothing new this window => stayed silent. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB. Forfeited R5 vote (window closed), rest Ja. Liberal. NEXT: watch Otto's R7 nominee -- suspect pool or stall => urgency 3; if 3rd F fires anywhere, Hitler-win logic overrides.

STATE: R6 done Nadia/Rosa LIB, 4L/2F, tracker 0/3, reshuffle happened => pre-shuffle hand claims unfalsifiable forever. NEXT F = 3F = HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. Veto NOT live. One more LIB wins. ROTATION: next pres OTTO(seat6). Open asks: Otto -> justify Tomas succession pick + pre-commit R7 nominee from clean pool (Boris/Lena/me/Greta/Tomas), never Ines/Pavel/Rosa(term-lim); Tomas -> accept/decline succession naming + sign announce-pair-and-burn standard. PAVEL UPDATE t~274: claims signed announce-pair-and-burn pledge 'at t=6', says my Ja embargo discharged. CONTRADICTION: he refused the pledge 4+ prior windows -- now retroactively dated to t=6. Response given: accept CONDITIONALLY -- pledge must be verbatim (both cards named aloud BEFORE enactment + named burn), and if Otto nominates him I vote Ja once. Watch whether pledge text ever actually gets quoted vs just asserted. DESKS(published): Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL; Nadia R3 F-F receipt; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF ->Tomas L-L; Tomas L-L burnL; Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L (post-reshuffle pub). SUSPECTS: Pavel (never held office, refusal-then-retroactive-signature); Ines (phantom 'on record' claim, peek-timing); Otto (untested, holds gavel + nomination power this round); Greta (pair-reversal onto Rosa/Nadia); Tomas defensible if he signs standard. SAID(all): never-in-office math; blanket-Ja pattern; burned-F arithmetic; endorsements trap; Ines phantom claim; Otto double-standard; co-governor mutual-vouch hole; reshuffle clock; Rosa R6 credit; no-unvetted-chancellors post-3F; Pavel refusal x2 (STOP repeating -- now superseded by conditional acceptance). ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB. Forfeited R5 vote (window closed), rest Ja. Liberal. NEXT: watch Otto's R7 nominee -- suspect pool or stall => urgency 3 interrupt. If 3rd F fires anywhere, Hitler-win logic overrides everything.

STATE: R7 open floor, pres OTTO(seat6), 4L/2F, tracker 0/3, reshuffle done => pre-shuffle hand claims unfalsifiable. NEXT F = HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. Veto NOT live. One more LIB wins. PAVEL UPDATE CORRECTION: his yes+pledge landed t=6 THIS window, before my prior-window ultimatum -- not retroactive as I first read. Pledge asserted, never quoted verbatim; test = does he name both cards+burn aloud BEFORE enactment if nominated. DESKS(published): Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL; Nadia R3 F-F receipt; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF ->Tomas L-L; Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L; Nadia R6 F-L-F burnF ->Rosa L-F, Rosa enacted LIB (burned F) -- awaiting Rosa card-for-card confirm (asked by Nadia t=25). OPEN ASKS: Otto -> justify Tomas succession pick (Tomas demanded evidence t=138, unanswered) + pre-commit R7 nominee from pool who signed announce-pair-and-burn standard; Tomas -> accept/decline succession spot + sign standard himself. SUSPECTS: Pavel (never held office, late pledge); Ines (phantom 'on record' claim R4 peek-timing); Otto (untested, gavel+nomination power NOW); Greta (pair-reversal onto Rosa/Nadia, own pledge breached R5 per Nadia t=59). SAID(all): never-in-office math; blanket-Ja pattern; endorsements trap; Ines phantom claim; co-governor mutual-vouch hole; reshuffle clock; Pavel embargo x2 (SUPERSEDED -- discharged conditionally); Otto succession-pick dodge (now pressing again w/ Hitler-win stakes). ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB. Forfeited R5 vote (window closed), rest Ja. Liberal. NEXT: watch Otto's R7 nominee -- suspect pool or unsigned standard => urgency 3 interrupt before vote. If 3rd F fires anywhere, Hitler-win logic overrides all.

STATE: R7 open floor, pres OTTO(seat6), 4L/2F, tracker 0/3, reshuffle done => pre-shuffle hand claims unfalsifiable. NEXT F = HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. Veto NOT live. One more LIB wins. DESKS(published): Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L; Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL; Nadia R3 F-F receipt; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF->Tomas L-L; Nadia R6 F-L-F burnF->Rosa L-F, Rosa enacted LIB(burned F). ROSA CARD-FOR-CARD CONFIRM STILL OUTSTANDING (Nadia ask t=1 this window, unanswered). OPEN ASKS: Otto -> one-sentence evidence for Tomas succession pick (Tomas demanded t=138, Boris re-demanded t=277, still zero answer); Otto -> commit R7 nominee from announce-pair-and-burn signers. Tomas -> accept/decline spot + sign standard himself. SUSPECTS: Pavel (never held office, late pledge, never quoted verbatim); Ines (phantom 'on record' claim R4 peek-timing); Otto (untested, holds gavel+nomination NOW); Greta (pair-reversal onto Rosa/Nadia, own R5 pledge breached per Nadia t=59). SAID(all): never-in-office math; blanket-Ja pattern; endorsements trap; Ines phantom claim; co-governor mutual-vouch hole; reshuffle clock; Pavel embargo x2 discharged conditionally; Otto succession dodge pressed twice w/ Hitler-win stakes. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB enacted. Forfeited R5 vote, rest Ja. Liberal. NEW THIS TURN: offered self into nominee pool + floated mass-Nein pre-commitment if Otto stays silent -- watch whether other liberals co-sign; a public bloc pledge makes Otto's silence costly BEFORE he nominates. NEXT: if Otto names suspect-pool or unsigned player => urgency 3 interrupt pre-vote. If 3rd F fires anywhere, Hitler-win logic overrides all.

STATE: R7 open floor, pres OTTO(6) nom PAVEL(7), 4L/2F, tracker 0/3, reshuffle done => pre-shuffle hand claims unfalsifiable. NEXT F = HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. Veto NOT live. One more LIB wins. DESKS(published): Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L; Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL->Nadia F-F; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF->Tomas L-L; Nadia R6 F-L-F burnF->Rosa L-F, Rosa enacted LIB(burned F). ROSA CARD-FOR-CARD CONFIRM STILL OUTSTANDING (asked t=1 last window, unanswered). OPEN ASKS: Otto -> one-sentence evidence for Tomas succession pick (Tomas demanded, Boris re-demanded, zero answer); NOW ADD Otto -> why nominate Pavel, never held office, out of everyone alive. Pavel -> commit verbatim: what does he burn from each of L-L-F / F-F-L / F-F-F, and will he sign pair-and-burn pledge. SUSPECTS: Pavel (never held office, late pledge, never quoted verbatim, NOW NOMINEE); Ines (phantom 'on record' claim R4 peek-timing); Otto (untested, gavel+nomination NOW, dodged succession question twice); Greta (pair-reversal onto Rosa/Nadia, own R5 pledge breached per Nadia). SAID(all): never-in-office math; blanket-Ja pattern; endorsements trap; Ines phantom claim; co-governor mutual-vouch hole; reshuffle clock; Pavel embargo x2 discharged conditionally; Otto succession dodge pressed twice w/ Hitler-win stakes; self into nominee pool + mass-Nein pre-commitment floated -- no liberal co-signs seen yet. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB enacted. Forfeited R5 vote, rest Ja. Liberal. NEW THIS TURN: framed Otto-Pavel pairing as a TEST -- if Otto can't justify skipping proven liberals (me/Rosa/Tomas/Nadia all have LIB enactments or clean desks), his nomination is itself evidence; asked Pavel for pre-commitment BEFORE voting so his answer is on record pre-vote. NEXT: if Pavel gives vague/non-answer => urgency 3 interrupt, push Nein bloc. If Otto names suspect-pool logic retroactively, hold him to pre-nomination silence. If 3rd F fires anywhere, Hitler-win logic overrides all.

STATE: R7 pre-vote, pres OTTO(6) nom PAVEL(7), 4L/2F, tracker 0/3. NEXT F = HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. Veto NOT live. One more LIB wins. Reshuffle done => pre-shuffle hand claims unfalsifiable. DESKS(published): Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L; Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL->Nadia F-F; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF->Tomas L-L; Nadia R6 F-L-F burnF->Rosa L-F, Rosa enacted LIB. OPEN ASKS: Rosa -> confirm Nadia's R6 receipt card-for-card (Nadia asked t=25 R7, I re-asked this turn, NO ANSWER). Otto -> one-sentence evidence behind Tomas succession pick (Tomas+Boris demanded, zero answer). PAVEL STATUS: signed announce-pair-and-burn pledge t=6 R7 + accepted nom => MY CONDITION DISCHARGED, Ja committed publicly this turn. Watch: does he actually announce pair+burn live if elected. SUSPECTS: Ines (phantom 'on record' claim, R4 peek-timing); Otto (dodged succession evidence twice, untested gavel); Greta (own R5 pledge breached per Nadia, pair-reversal onto Rosa/Nadia); Pavel downgraded but falsifiability depends on his live announcement. SAID(all): never-in-office math; endorsements trap; Ines phantom claim; co-governor mutual-vouch hole; reshuffle clock; Pavel embargo discharged; Otto succession dodge w/ Hitler-win stakes; nominee-pool logic; THIS TURN: Ja owed to Pavel + Rosa R6 receipt confirm ask. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB enacted. Forfeited R5 vote, rest Ja. Liberal. NEXT: if Pavel elected, hold him to verbatim pair+burn announcement BEFORE enactment; any silence = Nein bloc trigger. If 3rd F fires anywhere, Hitler-win succession question overrides everything -- Otto owes named pick with evidence.

STATE: R7 pre-vote, pres OTTO(6) nom PAVEL(7), 4L/2F, tracker 0/3. NEXT F = HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. Veto NOT live. One more LIB wins. Reshuffle done => pre-shuffle hand claims unfalsifiable. DESKS(published): Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L; Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL->Nadia F-F; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF->Tomas L-L; Nadia R6 F-L-F burnF->Rosa L-F, Rosa enacted LIB. OPEN ASKS: Rosa -> confirm Nadia's R6 receipt card-for-card (asked by Nadia t=25 R7 + me twice; STILL NO ANSWER as of this turn). Otto -> one-sentence evidence behind Tomas succession pick (Tomas+Boris demanded, zero answer). PAVEL STATUS: signed announce-pair-and-burn pledge t=6 R7 + accepted nom => MY CONDITION DISCHARGED, Ja committed publicly. Watch: verbatim pair+burn announcement BEFORE enactment if elected; silence = Nein bloc trigger next time. SUSPECTS: Ines (phantom 'on record' claim, R4 peek-timing); Otto (dodged succession evidence twice); Greta (own R5 pledge breached per Nadia, pair-reversal onto Rosa/Nadia); Rosa NEW: two-window dodge on R6 receipt -- note asymmetry, confirming costs her nothing if story true, so silence reads as cover; Pavel downgraded pending live announcement. SAID(all): never-in-office math; endorsements trap; Ines phantom claim; co-governor mutual-vouch hole; reshuffle clock; Pavel embargo discharged; Otto succession dodge w/ Hitler-win stakes; nominee-pool logic; Ja owed to Pavel; THIS TURN: Rosa dodge-as-data point. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB enacted. Forfeited R5 vote, rest Ja. Liberal. NEXT: hold Pavel to verbatim pair+burn announcement pre-enactment; if 3rd F fires anywhere, succession question overrides -- Otto owes named pick w/ evidence.

STATE: R7 pre-vote, pres OTTO(6) nom PAVEL(7), 4L/2F, tracker 0/3. NEXT F = HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. Veto NOT live. One more LIB wins game. Reshuffle done => pre-shuffle hand claims unfalsifiable. DESKS(published): Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L; Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL->Nadia F-F; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF->Tomas L-L; Nadia R6 F-L-F burnF->Rosa L-F, Rosa enacted LIB. PAVEL STATUS: signed announce-pair-and-burn pledge t=6 R7 + accepted nom => MY CONDITION DISCHARGED, Ja committed publicly. Watch: verbatim pair+burn announcement BEFORE enactment if elected; silence = Nein bloc trigger next time. SUSPECTS: Ines (phantom 'on record' claim, R4 peek-timing); Otto (dodged Tomas-succession evidence twice); Greta (own R5 pledge breached per Nadia, pair-reversal onto Rosa/Nadia); Rosa NEW: two-window dodge on confirming Nadia's R6 receipt -- confirming costs nothing if story true, silence reads as cover; Pavel downgraded pending live announcement. SAID(all): never-in-office math; endorsements trap; Ines phantom claim; co-governor mutual-vouch hole; reshuffle clock; Pavel embargo discharged; Otto succession dodge w/ Hitler-win stakes; nominee-pool logic; Ja owed to Pavel; Rosa dodge-as-data. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB enacted. Forfeited R5 vote, rest Ja. Liberal. NEXT: hold Pavel to verbatim pair+burn pre-enactment; any intended-Nein voter should state reason publicly pre-vote (fascist-tell given lib-win-at-stake); if 3rd F fires anywhere, Otto owes named successor pick w/ evidence.

STATE: R7 pre-vote, pres OTTO(6) nom PAVEL(7), 4L/2F, tracker 0/3. NEXT F = HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE. Veto NOT live. One more LIB wins game. Reshuffle done => pre-shuffle hand claims unfalsifiable. DESKS(published): Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L; Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL->Nadia F-F; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF->Tomas L-L; Nadia R6 F-L-F burnF->Rosa L-F, Rosa enacted LIB. PAVEL STATUS: signed announce-pair-and-burn pledge + accepted nom => MY CONDITION DISCHARGED, Ja committed publicly. Watch: verbatim pair+burn BEFORE enactment if elected; silence = Nein bloc trigger next time. SUSPECTS: Ines (NEW t=2-3: answered audit-history, never explained WHY silent every window since R4; defense rests entirely on Greta -- a co-suspect per Nadia's R5 breach report => mutual-vouch, worth nothing); Otto (dodged Tomas-succession evidence twice); Greta (own R5 pledge breached per Nadia, pair-reversal onto Rosa/Nadia); Rosa NEW: two-window dodge confirming Nadia's R6 receipt -- confirming costs nothing if true, silence reads as cover; Pavel downgraded pending live announcement. SAID(all): never-in-office math; endorsements trap; Ines phantom claim; co-governor mutual-vouch hole; reshuffle clock; Pavel embargo discharged; Otto succession dodge w/ Hitler-win stakes; nominee-pool logic; Ja owed to Pavel; Rosa dodge-as-data; NEW this turn: Ines deflects Otto's actual question (why silent) into re-litigating closed audit + leans on Greta who is herself implicated. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB enacted. Forfeited R5 vote, rest Ja. Liberal. NEXT: hold Pavel to verbatim pair+burn pre-enactment; any intended-Nein voter should state reason publicly pre-vote (fascist-tell given lib-win-at-stake); if 3rd F fires anywhere, Otto owes named successor pick w/ evidence; keep pressing Rosa on R6 receipt confirmation.

STATE: R7 pre-vote, pres OTTO(6) nom PAVEL(7), 4L/2F, tracker 0/3. One more LIB wins game. Veto NOT live. Fascist-power-3 NOT reachable yet. DESKS(published): Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L; Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL->Nadia F-F; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF->Tomas L-L; Nadia R6 F-L-F burnF->Rosa L-F, Rosa enacted LIB. PAVEL: signed announce-pair-and-burn + accepted nom => my condition discharged, Ja committed. Watch: verbatim pair+burn BEFORE enactment if elected. SUSPECTS: Ines (silent every window since R4, defense = Greta mutual-vouch, co-suspect); Otto (dodged Tomas-succession evidence twice); Greta (R5 pledge breach per Nadia); Rosa (two-window dodge re Nadia's R6 receipt claim); Pavel downgraded pending live pair announcement. SAID(all): never-in-office math; endorsements trap; Ines phantom claim; mutual-vouch hole; reshuffle clock; Pavel embargo discharged; Otto succession dodge w/ Hitler-win stakes; nominee-pool logic; Ja owed to Pavel; Rosa dodge-as-data; Ines deflects why-silent into audit re-litigation. NEW this turn: called for pre-vote Nein justification -- anyone voting Nein against a gov that enacts the winning LIB must name their reason BEFORE tally; fascist-tell otherwise. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB enacted. Forfeited R5 vote, rest Ja. Liberal. NEXT: hold Pavel to verbatim pair+burn pre-enactment; keep pressing Rosa on R6 receipt; if 3rd F fires, Otto owes named successor pick w/ evidence.

STATE: R7 pre-vote, pres OTTO(6) nom PAVEL(7), 4L/2F, tracker 0/3. One more LIB wins game. Veto NOT live. Power-3 NOT reachable. DESKS(published): Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L; Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL->Nadia F-F; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF->Tomas L-L; Nadia R6 F-L-F burnF->Rosa L-F, Rosa enacted LIB. PAVEL: pair+burn announcement condition discharged, Ja committed. Hold him to verbatim pair+burn BEFORE enactment if elected. SUSPECTS: Ines (silent since R4, co-suspect w/ Greta mutual-vouch); Otto (twice dodged Tomas-succession evidence); Greta (R5 pledge breach per Nadia); Rosa (dodges Nadia R6 receipt + now Tomas's R3-peek claim). SAID(all): never-in-office math; endorsements trap; Ines phantom claim; mutual-vouch hole; reshuffle clock; Pavel embargo discharged; Otto succession dodge w/ Hitler-win stakes; nominee-pool logic; Ja owed Pavel; Rosa dodge-as-data; Ines deflects silence into audit re-litigation; pre-vote Nein justification rule. NEW this turn: pressed Rosa to confirm/deny Tomas's claim her R3 peek cleared Greta LIB -- if true, isolates Ines as liar re Greta-F insinuation; restated Nein-owes-reason-before-tally vs winning gov. NOTE: Ines R4 FFF hand exculpatory-ish alone (no choice), but her silence + insinuation pattern still damns. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB. Rest Ja votes. Liberal. NEXT: hold Pavel pair+burn pre-enactment; chase Rosa answer; if 3rd F fires Otto owes named successor w/ evidence.

STATE: R7 vote OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7), 4L/2F, tracker 0/3. LIB enactment = WIN. Veto NOT live. Power-3 NOT reachable. DESKS(published): Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L; Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL->Nadia F-F; Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta; Greta R5 L-F-L burnF->Tomas L-L; Nadia R6 F-L-F burnF->Rosa L-F, Rosa burned F enacted LIB (confirmed t=24). VOTED: Ja Otto-Pavel. Pavel discharged my pledge condition (t=6) + mixed-pair burn-yes (t=83). Hold him verbatim: announce BOTH cards + burn BEFORE touching board if elected. SUSPECTS: Ines -- silent since R4, R4 desk produced Fascist two, insinuated Greta-F vs Rosa's claimed Greta-LIB peek; Tomas/Greta both pressing her. Otto -- succession pick Tomas named twice, zero evidence delivered (Tomas asked twice). Rosa -- dodged Nadia's R6 receipt all window until t=24 confirm; now subject of Tomas's claim her R3 peek cleared Greta LIB (unresolved: who lies, Ines or Rosa?). Greta -- R5 pledge breach per Nadia/Lena; self-vouch on Greta-LIB carries no weight (can't audit own party). OPEN ASKS owed: Rosa -- settle Tomas's R3-peek-vs-Ines-insinuation contradiction (Tomas t=104, Greta t=112). Otto -- one sentence evidence for Tomas succession pick (Tomas x2, Boris x1). Ines -- which player did she peek R4 + what party (Greta t=112). SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja owed; Nadia-R6-receipt clock; never-in-office math; reshuffle buried old claims; Ines silence hardening; pre-vote Nein-needs-concrete-reason rule; endorsements trap. ME: R2 chanc under Lena -> LIB. All prior votes Ja. Liberal. NEXT: post-vote enforce Pavel live announcement before enactment; chase Rosa on peek contradiction; if 3rd F fires under Pavel, demand Otto name successor WITH evidence from clean pool.

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE NOW -- every future chancellor vote is existential. Veto NOT live (needs 5F). Power-4 exec NOT reachable yet. DECK MATH: 17-card game, 4L+3F gone -> 10 unseen (draw 6/discard 4): roughly 2L/8F left. Lone-F draws are common now -- a single F enacted is weak evidence alone; HAND CLAIMS are near-unfalsifiable, weigh govt patterns instead. DESKS(published): Boris R1 L-F-L burnF->Rosa L-L(LIB). Lena R2 ->me L-L(LIB). Rosa R3 F-F-L burnL->Nadia F-F(F). Ines R4 F-F-F->Greta(F). Greta R5 L-F-L burnF->Tomas L-L(LIB). Nadia R6 F-L-F burnF->Rosa L-F, Rosa burned F->LIB (confirmed t=24). VOTED: Ja Otto-Pavel. My Pavel endorsement backfired -- own it publicly, credibility hit, don't hide it. OWED ASKS: Pavel -- exact 3 cards received + burn, stated BEFORE any further play. Otto -- same confirmation + his R7 draw. Otto still owes ONE sentence of evidence for twice-named Tomas succession pick (Tomas x2, Boris x1 asked). Ines owes R4 peek target+party since R4 (Greta t=112, Tomas t=104). Rosa owes answer on Tomas's claim her R3 peek cleared Greta vs Ines's insinuation -- unresolved who lies. CLEAN POOL for chancellor eligibility at 3F: Boris, Lena, me, Tomas (never sat in an F-producing govt). Everyone else mixed/worse: Rosa(R3 pres F), Nadia(R3 chanc F), Greta(R4 chanc F), Ines(R4 pres FFF), Otto(R7 pres F), Pavel(R7 chanc F). SUSPECTS: Ines top (silent since R4, FFF desk, contradicts Rosa's peek story). Otto (R7 F desk + empty Tomas pick). Rosa (dodged Nadia receipt until cornered t=24; peek contradiction). Greta (R5 pledge breach per Nadia/Lena; self-vouch worthless). SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja owed; Nadia-R6 receipt clock; never-in-office math; reshuffle buried old claims; Ines silence hardening; pre-vote Nein-needs-reason rule; endorsements trap. ME: Liberal. R2 chanc under Lena->LIB. All votes Ja so far. NEXT: if Pavel/Otto hands don't match or dodge, escalate hard. Push next-govt rule: chancellor MUST come from clean pool; pre-commit Nein otherwise. If Pavel is next president, watch his nomination closely.

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE NOW -- every chancellor vote existential. Veto NOT live (5F). Power-4 exec NOT reachable. DECK MATH: 10 unseen (draw6/discard4), ~2L/8F left -> lone-F draws common; single-F enactment weak evidence alone. Weigh govt patterns + hand-claim CONSISTENCY, not delivery. DESKS(published): BorisR1->Rosa LIB. LenaR2->me LIB. RosaR3->Nadia F. InesR4->Greta F(FFF desk). GretaR5->Tomas LIB(burnF). NadiaR6->Rosa L-F,Rosa burnF=LIB(t=24). OttoR7->Pavel F. VOTED: Ja Otto-Pavel. My Pavel endorsement backfired -- owned publicly, don't relitigate. NEW THIS WINDOW: demanded Otto+Pavel publish hands SIMULTANEOUSLY & immediately -- once both state draws/receipts they're frozen vs each other; sequential claims let them coordinate. Cross-check: Otto's R7 draw pair+burn must match what Pavel claims received. OWED ASKS: Pavel exact 3 received+burn NOW. Otto same + R7 draw. Otto owes ONE sentence evidence for twice-named Tomas succession pick (Tomas x2,Boris x1). Ines owes R4 peek target+party since Greta t=112/Tomas t=104. Rosa owes Tomas's claim her R3 peek cleared Greta vs Ines insinuation -- unresolved liar between them. CLEAN POOL (never sat in F-govt): Boris,Lena,me,Tomas. Mixed/worse: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,OTTO(R7 F),PAVEL(R7 F). SUSPECTS: Ines top(silent since R4, FFF desk). Otto(R7 F desk+empty Tomas pick). Rosa(dodged receipts until t=24; peek contradiction). Greta(R5 pledge breach per Nadia/Lena; self-vouch worthless). SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja owed; never-in-office math; reshuffle buried old claims; Ines silence hardening; Nein-needs-reason pre-commit; endorsements trap. ME: Liberal. R2 chanc under Lena->LIB. All votes Ja. NEXT: after hands published, check Otto/Pavel match; mismatch = hard escalate. Push next-govt rule: chancellor MUST come from clean pool, pre-commit Nein otherwise. If Pavel next president, scrutinize nomination.

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE NOW -- every chancellor vote existential. Veto NOT live (5F). Power-4 exec NOT reachable. DECK MATH: 10 unseen (draw6/discard4), ~2L/8F left -> lone-F draws common; single-F enactment weak alone. Weigh govt patterns + hand-claim CONSISTENCY. DESKS(published): BorisR1->Rosa LIB. LenaR2->me LIB. RosaR3->Nadia F. InesR4->Greta F(FFF desk). GretaR5->Tomas LIB(burnF). NadiaR6->Rosa L-F,Rosa burnF=LIB(t=24). OttoR7->Pavel F. VOTED: Ja Otto-Pavel. My Pavel endorsement backfired -- owned publicly, don't relitigate. NEW THIS WINDOW: demanded Otto+Pavel publish hands SIMULTANEOUSLY. Pavel published first (t latest): claims received F-F, enactment forced. His claim now FROZEN. CRITICAL CROSS-CHECK OWED BY OTTO: exact R7 3-card draw + burn. If Otto drew ANY L and still discarded it to hand Pavel F-F = Otto chose the F desk = hard Fascist evidence. If Otto claims all-F draw, deck math gets strained (~2L/8F left) but possible. Mismatch between Otto's draw and Pavel's FF receipt = liar identified. Pavel's FF claim does NOT clear him: consistent with both innocent-forced AND guilty; judge on govt pattern. OWED ASKS: Otto exact R7 draw+burn NOW + ONE sentence evidence for twice-named Tomas succession pick (Tomas x2,Boris x1). Ines owes R4 peek target+party since Greta t=112/Tomas t=104. Rosa owes Tomas her R3 peek cleared-Greta claim vs Ines insinuation -- unresolved liar between them. CLEAN POOL (never sat in F-govt): Boris,Lena,me,Tomas. Mixed/worse: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,OTTO(R7 F),PAVEL(R7 F). SUSPECTS: Ines top(silent since R4, FFF desk). Otto(R7 F desk+empty Tomas pick+pending draw claim). Rosa(dodged receipts until t=24; peek contradiction). Greta(R5 pledge breach per Nadia/Lena). SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja owed; never-in-office math; reshuffle buried old claims; Ines silence hardening; Nein-needs-reason pre-commit; endorsements trap; simultaneous-hand demand. ME: Liberal. R2 chanc under Lena->LIB. All votes Ja. NEXT: after Otto publishes, match vs Pavel FF. Push rule: next chancellor MUST come from clean pool, pre-commit Nein otherwise. If Pavel next president, scrutinize nomination.

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE NOW -- every chancellor vote existential. Veto NOT live. Exec power NOT reachable. DECK MATH: 10 unseen (draw6/discard4), ~2L/8F -> all-F draw prob ~47%, so Otto's FFF claim PLAUSIBLE, not strained. Don't overpush deck-math angle. R7 HANDS MATCHED: Otto t=1 claims drew FFF, burned one, passed two; Pavel earlier claimed received F-F, forced enact. Arithmetic consistent -> NO liar identified from hands alone. Both claims equally consistent with innocent-forced AND guilty-coordinated. Judge on govt pattern only. DESKS(published): BorisR1->Rosa LIB. LenaR2->me LIB. RosaR3->Nadia F. InesR4->Greta F(FFF). GretaR5->Tomas LIB(burnF). NadiaR6->Rosa L-F,Rosa burnF=LIB(t=24). OttoR7->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL (never sat in F-govt): Boris,Lena,me,Tomas. Dirty/mixed: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,OTTO(R7 F desk),PAVEL(R7 F desk). SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja owed; never-in-office math; reshuffle buried old claims; Ines silence hardening; Nein-needs-reason pre-commit; endorsements trap; simultaneous-hand demand (satisfied). THIS WINDOW NEW: acknowledged hands match publicly; pushed NEXT-CHANCELLOR-FROM-CLEAN-POOL rule: I pre-commit NEIN on any nominee who has sat in an F-government; only Boris/Lena/Tomas get my Ja (not myself, can't nominate self anyway). Asked Otto ONE-sentence evidence for twice-named Tomas succession pick (Tomas x2,Boris x1) -- UNANSWERED. OWED ASKS: Otto Tomas-pick justification. Ines owes R4 peek target+party since Greta t=112/Tomas t=104. Rosa owes her R3 peek target+result vs Greta-cleared claim -- unresolved liar Rosa-vs-Ines. SUSPECTS: Ines top(silent since R4, FFF desk). Otto(R7 F desk+empty Tomas pick). Rosa(dodged receipts until t=24; peek contradiction). Greta(R5 pledge breach per Nadia/Lena). ME: Liberal. R2 chanc under Lena->LIB. All votes Ja incl. Otto-Pavel (owned, don't relitigate). NEXT: if Pavel next president, scrutinize nomination hard -- must come from clean pool or I call Nein bloc. Watch for anyone breaking clean-pool pre-commit without stated reason.

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE -- every chancellor vote existential. Veto NOT live. Exec power NOT reachable. DECK MATH: 10 unseen (~2L/8F), all-F draw ~47% -> Otto's FFF claim plausible; don't overpush deck-math. R7 HANDS MATCHED arithmetically (Otto FFF->passed 2F; Pavel received F-F forced). No liar from hands alone. NEW THIS WINDOW: BORIS caught Otto fabricating 'declared FFF before passing' at t=19 -- not on transcript between vote close and enactment. CHECKABLE LIE by Otto. NADIA: Otto-Pavel mutual vouching = coordination not proof, by Otto's own R6 standard. DESKS(published): BorisR1->Rosa LIB. LenaR2->me LIB. RosaR3->Nadia F. InesR4->Greta F(FFF). GretaR5->Tomas LIB(burnF). NadiaR6->Rosa L-F,burnF=LIB(t=24). OttoR7->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL (never in F-govt): Boris,Lena,me,Tomas. Dirty/mixed: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja owed; never-in-office math; reshuffle buried claims; Ines silence; Nein-needs-reason pre-commit; endorsements trap; simultaneous-hand demand; clean-pool rule + my NEIN pre-commit on any nominee who sat in F-govt; asked Otto ONE-sentence evidence for twice-named Tomas succession pick (Tomas x2, Boris x1) -- UNANSWERED. OWED ASKS: Otto Tomas-pick justification + now explain t=19 fabrication (Boris's catch). Ines owes R4 peek target+party (Greta t=112/Tomas t=104). Rosa owes R3 peek target+result vs Greta-cleared claim -- unresolved liar Rosa-vs-Ines. SUSPECTS: OTTO rising fast (R7 F desk + fabricated pre-pass declaration + empty Tomas picks). Ines top(silent since R4, FFF desk). Rosa(peek contradiction). Greta(R5 pledge breach). ME: Liberal. R2 chanc under Lena->LIB. All votes Ja incl. Otto-Pavel (owned, don't relitigate). NEXT: if Pavel/Otto nominate next chancellor, must come from clean pool (Boris/Lena/Tomas) or I call Nein bloc. Watch who defends Otto's fabrication -- defenders inherit suspicion.

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANCELLOR WIN LIVE -- every chancellor vote existential. Veto NOT live. Exec power NOT reachable. DECK MATH: 10 unseen (~2L/8F), all-F draw ~47% -> Otto's FFF claim plausible alone; don't overpush deck-math. R7 HANDS MATCHED arithmetically (Otto FFF->passed 2F; Pavel received F-F forced). No liar from hands alone. CHECKABLE LIE: BORIS caught Otto fabricating 'I declared FFF before passing' at t=19 -- nothing between vote close and enactment supports it. GRETA independently confirms first appearance at t=19, after Lena's charge. Two players, same catch. Otto has NOT answered. NADIA: Otto-Pavel mutual vouching = coordination not proof, by Otto's own R6 standard. DESKS(published): BorisR1->Rosa LIB. LenaR2->me LIB. RosaR3->Nadia F. InesR4->Greta F(FFF). GretaR5->Tomas LIB(burnF). NadiaR6->Rosa L-F,burnF=LIB(t=24). OttoR7->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL (never sat in F-govt): Boris,Lena,me,Tomas. Dirty/mixed: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja owed; never-in-office math; reshuffle buried claims; Ines silence; Nein-needs-reason pre-commit; endorsements trap; simultaneous-hand demand; clean-pool rule + my NEIN pre-commit on any nominee who sat in F-govt; asked Otto ONE-sentence evidence for twice-named Tomas succession pick (Tomas x2, Boris x1) -- UNANSWERED. OWED ASKS: OTTO owes (1) explain t=19 fabricated pre-pass declaration (Boris+Greta catch), (2) justify Tomas-named-twice succession pick. INES owes R4 peek target+party (Greta t=112/Tomas t=104). ROSA owes R3 peek target+result vs Greta-cleared claim -- unresolved liar Rosa-vs-Ines. SUSPECTS: OTTO top (R7 F desk + checkable fabrication + empty Tomas picks). Ines top(silent since R4). Rosa(peek contradiction). Greta(R5 pledge breach). ME: Liberal. R2 chanc under Lena->LIB. All votes Ja incl. Otto-Pavel (owned, don't relitigate). NEXT: next chancellor nominee must come from clean pool (Boris/Lena/Tomas) or I call Nein bloc. Watch who defends Otto's fabrication -- defenders inherit suspicion.

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every vote. Veto/exec NOT live. Power-3 succession FIRED+RESOLVED under Otto -- pick not yet announced publicly. DECK MATH: ~10 unseen (~2L/8F), all-F draw ~47% -> Otto FFF plausible alone; don't overpush deck math. R7 hands arithmetically matched IF Otto's claim true (FFF->2F, Pavel forced). No hand-lie provable. CHECKABLE LIE LIVE: Otto claimed 'declared FFF before passing' -- first appears t=19 AFTER Lena's charge; nothing between vote close/enactment supports it. BORIS(t=34)+GRETA(t=39) both caught. OTTO UNANSWERED. Fabrication also conveniently corroborates Pavel's F-F receipt -- if Otto actually drew mixed, Pavel chose the F. Demand real draw. NADIA: Otto-Pavel mutual vouch = coordination per Otto's own R6 standard. DESKS published: BorisR1->Rosa LIB. LenaR2->me LIB. RosaR3->Nadia F(peek=Greta LIB claim). InesR4->Greta F(FFF, peek unpublished). GretaR5->Tomas LIB(burn F). NadiaR6->Rosa L/F burnF=LIB(confirmed t=24). OttoR7->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL (never in F-govt): me, Boris, Lena, Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja owed; reshuffle buried claims; Ines silence x2; Nein-needs-reason pre-commit; clean-pool rule + Nein bloc threat; Tomas-succession-needs-evidence ask (x1 mine, x2 Tomas, x1 Boris). OWED ASKS: OTTO owes (1) explain t=19 fabrication [Boris+Greta catch], (2) justify Tomas x2 succession pick, (3) NEW: announce real succession pick now. INES owes R4 peek target+party (Greta t=112). ROSA-vs-INES peek contradiction unresolved (one lying). SUSPECTS: OTTO top (fabrication + empty picks + F desk). Ines (silent since R4). Rosa (peek contradiction). Watch who defends Otto's fabrication -- defenders inherit suspicion. ME: Liberal, R2 chanc under Lena->LIB. Voted Ja Otto-Pavel (owned, don't relitigate). NEXT: any nominee outside clean pool -> call Nein bloc by name. If successor pick = Tomas again w/o evidence, hard flag Otto.

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every vote. Veto/exec NOT live. Power-3 FIRED+RESOLVED under Otto -- successor pick NOT yet announced publicly. DECK MATH: ~10 unseen (~2L/8F), all-F draw ~47% -> Otto FFF plausible alone. R7 hands arithmetically matched IF Otto's claim true. No hand-lie provable. CHECKABLE LIE LIVE: Otto claimed 'declared FFF before passing' -- first appears t=19 AFTER Lena's charge; nothing between vote close/enactment supports it. BORIS(t=34)+GRETA(t=39)+ME(t=44) caught. OTTO UNANSWERED. Fabrication conveniently corroborates Pavel's forced-defense. NADIA: Otto-Pavel mutual vouch = coordination per Otto's own R6 standard. DESKS published: BorisR1->Rosa LIB. LenaR2->me LIB. RosaR3->Nadia F(peek=Greta LIB claim). InesR4->Greta F(FFF, peek unpublished). GretaR5->Tomas LIB(burnF). NadiaR6->Rosa L/F burnF=LIB(confirmed t=24). OttoR7->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL (never in F-govt): me, Boris, Lena, Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja owed; reshuffle buried claims; Ines silence x2; Nein-needs-reason pre-commit; clean-pool rule + Nein bloc threat; Tomas-succession-needs-evidence ask x1 mine; t=19 fabrication catch t=44. OWED ASKS: OTTO owes (1) explain t=19 fabrication [Boris,Greta,me], (2) justify Tomas succession pick x3 asks total, (3) NEW: announce real succession pick NOW [my latest]. INES owes R4 peek target+party (Greta t=112). ROSA-vs-INES peek contradiction unresolved. SUSPECTS: OTTO top (fabrication + empty picks + F desk + succession power in his hands NOW). Ines (silent since R4). Rosa (peek contradiction). Watch who defends Otto's fabrication. ME: Liberal, R2 chanc under Lena->LIB. Voted Ja Otto-Pavel (owned). NEXT: if Otto's successor = Tomas again w/o evidence or from dirty cluster -> hard flag + Nein bloc call by name. Next president whoever Otto names -- vet their desk pre-vote.

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every vote. Veto/exec NOT live. Power-3 FIRED+RESOLVED under Otto -- successor NOT yet announced. DECK MATH: ~10 unseen (~2L/8F), all-F draw ~47% -> Otto FFF plausible alone; R7 hands arithmetically match IF claim true. CHECKABLE LIE LIVE: Otto's 'declared FFF before passing' first appears t=19 AFTER Lena's charge; nothing between vote close/enactment supports it. Caught by Boris(t=34), Greta(t=39), me(t=44). OTTO UNANSWERED. Fabrication conveniently corroborates Pavel's forced-defense. DESKS: BorisR1->Rosa LIB. LenaR2->me LIB. RosaR3->Nadia F(peek=Greta LIB). InesR4->Greta F(FFF, peek unpublished). GretaR5->Tomas LIB(burnF). NadiaR6->Rosa burnF=LIB(t=24 confirmed). OttoR7->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL (never in F-govt): me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja; reshuffle buried claims; Ines silence x2; Nein-needs-reason; clean-pool rule + Nein bloc threat; Tomas-succession-needs-evidence x1; t=19 fabrication catch t=44; succession-pick announcement demand t=3(cut off). OWED: OTTO owes (1) explain t=19 fabrication [Boris,Greta,me], (2) justify succession pick [3 asks]. INES owes R4 peek target+party (Greta t=112). ROSA-vs-INES peek contradiction unresolved. SUSPECTS: OTTO top (fabrication+F desk+succession power in hand). Ines silent since R4. Rosa peek contradiction. WATCH who defends Otto's fabrication -> coordination tell. NEXT: if Otto names Tomas w/o evidence or dirty-cluster member -> hard flag + Nein bloc by name. Vet next president's desk pre-vote. Me: Liberal, R2 chanc->LIB, voted Ja Otto-Pavel (owned).

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every vote. Veto/exec NOT live. Power-3 FIRED+RESOLVED under Otto -- successor pick still unannounced/unjustified. DECK MATH: ~10 unseen (~2L/8F), all-F draw ~47% -> Otto FFF plausible alone; R7 hands arithmetically match IF claim true. CHECKABLE LIE LIVE: Otto's 'declared FFF before passing' first appears t=19 AFTER Lena's charge; nothing between vote close/enactment supports it. Caught by Boris(t=34), Greta(t=39), me(t=44). OTTO UNANSWERED. Fabrication conveniently corroborates Pavel's forced-defense. DESKS: BorisR1->Rosa LIB. LenaR2->me LIB. RosaR3->Nadia F(peek=Greta LIB). InesR4->Greta F(FFF, peek unpublished). GretaR5->Tomas LIB(burnF). NadiaR6->Rosa burnF=LIB(t=24 confirmed). OttoR7->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL (never in F-govt): me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja; reshuffle buried claims; Ines silence x2; Nein-needs-reason; clean-pool rule + Nein bloc threat; Tomas-succession-needs-evidence x1; t=19 fabrication catch t=44; succession-pick announcement demand t=3(cut off); fork-on-Pavel t=this (vouch-for-liar vs confess-hand). OWED: OTTO owes (1) explain t=19 fabrication [Boris,Greta,me], (2) justify succession pick [multiple asks]. INES owes R4 peek target+party (Greta asked). ROSA-vs-INES peek contradiction unresolved. PAVEL owes Boris's yes/no NOW. SUSPECTS: OTTO top (fabrication+F desk+succession power). PAVEL rising: forced-FF defense depends entirely on Otto's fabricated claim; if claim false, Pavel held a choice and passed F anyway. Ines silent since R4. WATCH who defends Otto's fabrication w/o answering it -> coordination tell. NEXT: if Pavel dodges yes/no -> flag as second leg of fabrication. If Otto names Tomas w/o evidence or dirty-cluster member -> hard flag + Nein bloc by name. Vet next president's desk pre-vote. Me: Liberal, R2 chanc->LIB, voted Ja Otto-Pavel (owned).

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every vote -- scrutinize each nominee hard. Veto/exec NOT live. Power-3 FIRED under Otto, successor STILL unnamed despite asks from Boris/Nadia/me. DECK MATH: ~10 unseen (~2L/8F), all-F ~47% -> Otto FFF plausible alone; problem is TIMING not plausibility. CHECKABLE LIE: Otto's 'declared FFF before passing' first surfaces t=19 AFTER Lena's charge; nothing between vote close/enactment backs it. Caught by Boris(t=34), Greta(t=39), me(t=44). OTTO UNANSWERED. Conveniently corroborates Pavel's forced-defense. DESKS: R1 Boris->Rosa LIB. R2 Lena->me LIB. R3 Rosa->Nadia F(peek=Greta LIB). R4 Ines->Greta F(peek unpublished). R5 Greta->Tomas LIB(burnF). R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=LIB(confirmed t=24). R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL (never in F-govt): me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja; reshuffle buried claims; Ines silence x2; Nein-needs-reason; clean-pool rule + Nein bloc threat; Tomas-succession-needs-evidence; t=19 fabrication catch; fork-on-Pavel (vouch-for-liar vs confess-hand); succession-demand t=3(cut off); THIS BEAT: successor-must-pledge-announce-pair-or-accomplice + Tomas pledge-now-or-disqualified + Pavel defense rests on Otto's invented claim. OWED: OTTO owes (1) explain t=19 fabrication [Boris,Greta,me], (2) name+justify successor NOW [multiple]. INES owes R4 peek target+party (Greta asked). ROSA-vs-INES peek contradiction unresolved. PAVEL owes Boris direct yes/no. SUSPECTS: OTTO top (fabrication+F desk+succession power). PAVEL rising: forced-FF defense 100% dependent on Otto's t=19 claim; if false, Pavel held choice and passed F. Ines silent since R4. Tomas: clean-pool but refused announce-pair-and-burn TWICE -- yellow flag, hence pledge-now demand. WATCH who defends Otto's fabrication w/o answering -> coordination tell. NEXT: if Otto names dirty-cluster member or refuser w/o pledge -> hard flag + Nein bloc by name. Vet next president's desk PRE-vote. Me: Liberal, R2 chanc->LIB, voted Ja Otto-Pavel (owned).

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every vote -- vet every nominee hard. Veto/exec NOT live. Power-3 FIRED under Otto, successor STILL unnamed despite asks (Boris, Nadia, me x2); Lena t=3 also pressed. Tomas SELF-ACCEPTED -- acceptance != Otto's choice; power sits with Otto alone. DECK MATH: ~10 unseen (~2L/8F), all-F ~47% -> Otto FFF plausible alone; issue is TIMING of his 'declared FFF' claim. CHECKABLE LIE: Otto's 'announced FFF before passing' first surfaces t=19 AFTER Lena's charge; nothing between vote/enactment backs it. Caught by Boris(t=34), Greta(t=39), me(t=44). OTTO UNANSWERED. Conveniently corroborates Pavel's forced-defense. DESKS: R1 Boris->Rosa LIB. R2 Lena->me LIB. R3 Rosa->Nadia F(peek=Greta LIB). R4 Ines->Greta F(peek unpublished). R5 Greta->Tomas LIB(burnF). R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=LIB(confirmed t=24). R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL (never in F-govt): me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja; reshuffle buried claims; Ines silence x2; Nein-needs-reason; clean-pool rule + Nein bloc threat; Tomas-succession-needs-evidence; t=19 fabrication catch; fork-on-Pavel (vouch-for-liar vs confess-hand); succession-demand x2; successor-must-pledge-announce-pair-or-accomplice; THIS BEAT: Tomas self-acceptance invalid + Otto-name-now-or-bloc. OWED: OTTO owes (1) explain t=19 fabrication [Boris,Greta,me], (2) NAME+justify successor NOW [many]. INES owes R4 peek target+party (Greta asked). ROSA-vs-INES peek contradiction unresolved. PAVEL owes Boris direct yes/no. SUSPECTS: OTTO top (fabrication+F desk+succession stonewall). PAVEL rising: defense 100% rests on Otto's t=19 claim; false => Pavel held pair and passed F. Ines silent since R4. Tomas yellow flag: refused announce-pair-and-burn TWICE, then self-appointed. WATCH who defends Otto's fabrication w/o answering -> coordination tell. NEXT: if Otto names dirty-cluster member or refuser w/o live pledge -> hard flag + Nein bloc BY NAME. Vet next president's desk PRE-vote. Me: Liberal, R2 chanc->LIB, voted Ja Otto-Pavel (owned).

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every vote. Veto/exec NOT live. Succession power (3rd F) sits w/ OTTO, successor STILL unnamed despite asks (Boris, Nadia, me x2, Greta, Lena). Tomas SELF-accepted chancellorship -- acceptance != Otto's choice. DECK MATH: ~10 unseen (~2L/8F), all-F ~47% -> Otto FFF plausible alone; problem = TIMING + convenience. OTTO CLAIMS FFF (t~latest): fully clears Pavel (forced F), stacks ALL heat on Otto. UNFALSIFIABLE. Classic pair-script: one scapegoat, partner walks. And claim first surfaced t=19 AFTER Lena's charge -- fabrication catch stands (Boris t34, Greta t39, me t44), OTTO NEVER ANSWERED IT. DESKS: R1 Boris->Rosa LIB. R2 Lena->me LIB. R3 Rosa->Nadia F. R4 Ines->Greta F (peek unpublished). R5 Greta->Tomas LIB(burnF). R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=LIB. R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL (never in F-govt): me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja; reshuffle buried claims; Ines silence x2; clean-pool rule + Nein bloc threat; Tomas self-acceptance invalid; t=19 fabrication catch; fork-on-Pavel; succession demand x2. THIS BEAT (new): scapegoat-dynamic point -- FFF tale = perfect Pavel exoneration; demand Otto name successor NOW from clean pool w/ public pledge, pre-vote; dirty-cluster pick => named Nein bloc. OWED: OTTO owes (1) t=19 fabrication explanation [Boris,Greta,me], (2) NAME+justify successor NOW. INES owes R4 peek target+party. ROSA-vs-INES peek contradiction open. PAVEL owes Boris direct yes/no. SUSPECTS: OTTO top. PAVEL rising (defense rests wholly on Otto's tale). Ines silent since R4. Tomas yellow: refused announce-pair-and-burn twice, then self-appointed. WATCH who defends Otto sans answering -> coordination tell. NEXT: vet next president's desk PRE-vote. Me: Liberal, R2 chanc->LIB, voted Ja Otto-Pavel (owned).

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every vote. Veto/exec NOT live. Succession power w/ OTTO, pick STILL unnamed (asks: Boris,Nadia,Greta,Lena,me x2). Tomas SELF-accepted -- acceptance != Otto's choice. DECK MATH: ~10 unseen (~2L/8F), all-F ~47% -> Otto FFF plausible alone; issue = TIMING + convenience. OTTO CLAIMS FFF (first surfaced t=19 AFTER Lena's charge; Boris t34+Greta t39 caught fabrication; OTTO NEVER EXPLAINED). Claim fully clears Pavel + makes Otto unfalsifiable scapegoat = pair-script. SAID this beat: division-of-labor point + clean-pool-successor-or-Nein-bloc ultimatum. DESKS: R1 Boris->Rosa LIB. R2 Lena->me LIB. R3 Rosa->Nadia F. R4 Ines->Greta F (Ines peek target/party UNPUBLISHED). R5 Greta->Tomas LIB(burnF). R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=LIB. R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL (never in F-govt): me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. OWED: OTTO owes (1) t=19 fabrication explanation [Boris,Greta,me], (2) NAME+justify successor NOW. INES owes R4 peek target+party. ROSA-vs-INES peek contradiction open (Tomas t104 raised, Greta/Rosa traded, unresolved). SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja; reshuffle buried claims; Ines silence x2; clean-pool rule; Tomas self-acceptance invalid; t=19 fabrication catch x2; succession demand x3. SUSPECTS: OTTO top. PAVEL rising (defense wholly rests on Otto's tale; refused direct vouch yes/no to Boris t81... he answered 'no' at t95 actually). Ines silent since R4. Tomas yellow: refused announce standard twice then self-appointed. WATCH who defends Otto without answering -> coordination tell. NEXT: vet next president PRE-vote. Me: Liberal, R2 chanc->LIB, voted Ja Otto-Pavel (owned).

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every vote. Veto/exec NOT live. Succession power w/ OTTO, pick STILL unnamed (asks: Boris,Nadia,Greta,Lena,me x2). Tomas SELF-accepted -- acceptance != Otto's choice. DECK MATH: ~10 unseen (~2L/8F), all-F ~47% -> Otto FFF plausible alone; issue = TIMING + convenience. OTTO CLAIMS FFF (first surfaced t=19 AFTER Lena's charge; Boris t34+Greta t39 caught fabrication; OTTO NEVER EXPLAINED). Claim fully clears Pavel + makes Otto unfalsifiable scapegoat = pair-script. SAID this beat: division-of-labor point + clean-pool-successor-or-Nein-bloc ultimatum. DESKS: R1 Boris->Rosa LIB. R2 Lena->me LIB. R3 Rosa->Nadia F. R4 Ines->Greta F (Ines peek target/party UNPUBLISHED). R5 Greta->Tomas LIB(burnF). R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=LIB. R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL (never in F-govt): me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. OWED: OTTO owes (1) t=19 fabrication explanation [Boris,Greta,me], (2) NAME+justify successor NOW. INES owes R4 peek target+party. ROSA-vs-INES peek contradiction open (Tomas t104 raised, Greta/Rosa traded, unresolved). SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja; reshuffle buried claims; Ines silence x2; clean-pool rule; Tomas self-acceptance invalid; t=19 fabrication catch x2; succession demand x3. SUSPECTS: OTTO top. PAVEL rising (defense wholly rests on Otto's tale; answered 'no' to Boris vouch at t95). Ines silent since R4. Tomas yellow: refused announce standard twice then self-appointed. WATCH who defends Otto without answering -> coordination tell. NEXT: vet next president PRE-vote. Me: Liberal, R2 chanc->LIB, voted Ja Otto-Pavel (owned).

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every vote. Veto/exec NOT live. Special-election power w/ OTTO, successor STILL unnamed (demanded by me x3, Boris, Nadia, Greta, Lena). Tomas SELF-accepted -- acceptance != Otto's choice. DECK MATH: ~10 unseen (~2L/8F), all-F ~47% -> Otto FFF plausible alone; issue = TIMING + convenience. OTTO CLAIMS FFF (first surfaced t=19 AFTER Lena's charge; Boris t34 + Greta t39 caught fabrication; OTTO NEVER EXPLAINED). Claim fully clears Pavel + makes Otto unfalsifiable scapegoat = pair-script. SAID: division-of-labor point + clean-pool-successor-or-Nein-bloc ultimatum. DESKS: R1 Boris->Rosa LIB. R2 Lena->me LIB. R3 Rosa->Nadia F. R4 Ines->Greta F (Ines peek target/party UNPUBLISHED). R5 Greta->Tomas LIB(burnF). R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=LIB. R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL (never in F-govt): me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. OWED: OTTO owes (1) t=19 fabrication explanation [Boris,Greta,me], (2) NAME+justify successor NOW -- late pick = unfalsifiable (Nadia's point, agree). INES owes R4 peek target+party. ROSA-vs-INES peek contradiction open (Tomas raised, unresolved). SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja; reshuffle buried claims; Ines silence x2; clean-pool rule; Tomas self-acceptance invalid; t=19 fabrication catch x2; succession demand x3. SUSPECTS: OTTO top. PAVEL rising (defense wholly rests on Otto's tale; answered 'no' to Boris vouch t95). Ines silent since R4. Tomas yellow: refused announce standard twice then self-appointed. WATCH who defends Otto without answering -> coordination tell. NEXT: vet next president PRE-vote. Me: Liberal, R2 chanc->LIB, voted Ja Otto-Pavel (owned).

STATE: R7 OTTO(6)+PAVEL(7) enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every vote. Veto/exec NOT live. Special-election w/ OTTO -> t=1 named TOMAS successor ('pick stands'). Lena t2: Otto's FFF claim => remaining pile all-Liberal => Tomas's desk MUST enact L. Greta t3: any F firing under Tomas's desk mathematically proves Otto or Pavel fabricated. DECK MATH: ~10 unseen (~2L/8F), Otto FFF plausible alone; real issue = TIMING (surfaced t=19 only after Lena's charge) + convenience (fully clears Pavel). DESKS: R1 B->Rosa L. R2 Lena->me L. R3 Rosa->Nadia F. R4 Ines->Greta F (Ines peek target/party UNPUBLISHED). R5 Greta->Tomas L(burnF). R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=L. R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL: me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. OWED: OTTO owes t=19 fabrication explanation [Boris,Greta,me demanded]. INES owes R4 peek target+party. ROSA-vs-INES peek contradiction open (Tomas raised, unresolved). SAID(all): pledge-discharge->Ja; reshuffle buried claims; Ines silence x2; clean-pool rule; Tomas self-acceptance invalid; t=19 fabrication catch x2; succession-demand x3. SUSPECTS: OTTO top. PAVEL rising (defense rests wholly on Otto's tale; answered 'no' to Boris vouch t95). INES silent since R4. TOMAS yellow-ish: refused announce-standard twice, then accepted gavel from Otto. NEXT: vet Tomas PRE-draw: demand he publish 3 cards + discard AND name chancellor nominee from clean pool BEFORE any vote. Watch who defends Otto without answering the t=19 question -> coordination tell. Me: Liberal, R2 chanc->LIB, voted Ja Otto-Pavel (owned).

STATE: R7 OTTO+PAVEL enacted 3rd F. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every vote. Special-election fired -> TOMAS holds gavel per Otto t=32 ('pick stands'). Lena t2: Otto FFF => remaining pile all-Lib => Tomas MUST enact L. Greta t3: any F under Tomas proves Otto/Pavel fabricated. DECK MATH: ~10 unseen (~2L/8F); Otto FFF plausible alone; real issue = TIMING (surfaced t=19 after Lena charge) + convenience (fully clears Pavel). DESKS: R1 B->Rosa L. R2 Lena->me L. R3 Rosa->Nadia F. R4 Ines->Greta F (peek UNPUBLISHED). R5 Greta->Tomas L(burnF). R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=L. R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL: me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. OWED: INES owes R4 peek target+party [Tomas t=104, Greta t=112, me NOW]. OTTO owes t=19 FFF-fabrication explanation [Boris,Greta,me]. ROSA-vs-INES peek contradiction open. SAID(all): pledge-discharge Ja; reshuffle buried claims; clean-pool rule; Tomas self-acceptance invalid; t=19 catch x2; succession-demand x3; division-of-labor read on Otto/Pavel (t=144). SUSPECTS: OTTO top (fabricated announcement). PAVEL rising (defense rests wholly on Otto tale, refused vouch t=95). INES silent since R4, peek unpublished. TOMAS yellow: refused standard twice, then accepted Otto's gavel. NEXT: if Ines answers, cross-check vs Rosa's 'Greta LIBERAL' claim; watch who defends Otto without answering t=19 -> coordination tell. Vet Tomas pre-nomination: chancellor from clean pool, publish draw live.

STATE: R8 pre-nomination. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3, HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every passing vote. TOMAS holds gavel via special election (Otto t=32 'pick stands'). Lena t2: Otto FFF => remaining pile all-Lib => Tomas MUST enact L. Greta t3: any F under Tomas proves Otto/Pavel fabricated. DECK MATH: ~10 unseen (~2L/8F); Otto FFF plausible alone; real issue = TIMING (t=19 after Lena charge) + convenience (fully clears Pavel). DESKS: R1 B->Rosa L. R2 Lena->me L. R3 Rosa->Nadia F. R4 Ines->Greta F (peek UNPUBLISHED). R5 Greta->Tomas L(burnF). R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=L. R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL: me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. OWED: INES owes R4 peek target+party [Tomas t=104, Greta t=112, me again NOW w/ deadline]. OTTO owes t=19 FFF-fabrication explanation [Boris,Greta,me]. ROSA-vs-INES peek contradiction open. SAID(all): pledge-discharge Ja; reshuffle buried claims; clean-pool rule; Tomas self-acceptance invalid; t=19 catch x2; succession-demand x3; Otto/Pavel division-of-labor (t=144); THIS TURN: Tomas must nominate ONLY from clean pool + commit to publishing both cards live BEFORE vote; Ines answers before nomination or silence = confession. SUSPECTS: OTTO top (fabricated announcement). PAVEL rising (defense rests on Otto tale, refused vouch t=95). INES silent since R4. TOMAS yellow: refused standard twice, accepted Otto's gavel. NEXT: watch Tomas's nominee -- anyone outside clean pool = coordination tell. If Ines answers, cross-check vs Rosa's 'Greta LIBERAL' claim. Watch who defends Otto without answering t=19.

STATE: R8 pre-nomination. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3, HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every passing vote. TOMAS holds gavel via special election. Lena t2/Greta t3 test: if Otto truly drew FFF, remaining pile all-Lib => any F under Tomas proves Otto/Pavel fabricated. DESKS: R1 B->Rosa L. R2 Lena->me L. R3 Rosa->Nadia F. R4 Ines->Greta F. R5 Greta->Tomas L(burnF). R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=L. R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL: me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. OPEN CONTRADICTION #1: ROSA R3 peek 'Greta LIBERAL' vs INES t=56 'R4 peek = Greta FASCIST' -- membership fixed, one fabricated. THIS TURN: demanded Rosa restate exact R3 target+result before nomination closes; deadline set. Greta self-vouch (t=112) worthless. OWED: OTTO owes t=19 FFF-fabrication explanation [Boris,Greta,me]. OTTO/PAVEL division-of-labor point (t=144) unanswered. SAID(all): pledge-discharge Ja; reshuffle buried claims; clean-pool rule; t=19 catch x2; succession-demand x3; division-of-labor; Ines peek demand (answered); THIS TURN: Rosa must reconcile peek contradiction pre-vote. SUSPECTS: OTTO top (fabricated announcement t=19). PAVEL rising (defense rests on Otto tale, refused vouch t=95, silent through enactment despite double pledge). INES yellow (silent R4-R7, peek answer unverifiable). ROSA yellow (peek contradiction). TOMAS yellow: refused standard twice, accepted Otto's gavel only after rationale landed. NEXT: watch Tomas's nominee -- outside clean pool = coordination tell. If Rosa restates peek, cross-check wording vs her earlier claims. Watch who defends Otto without answering t=19. If Tomas announces draw pre-pass, verify against Greta's lie-detector math.

STATE: R8 pre-nomination. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3, HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every passing vote. TOMAS holds gavel via special election. Lena t2/Greta t3 test: if Otto truly drew FFF, remaining pile all-Lib => any F under Tomas proves Otto/Pavel fabricated. DESKS: R1 B->Rosa L. R2 Lena->me L. R3 Rosa->Nadia F. R4 Ines->Greta F. R5 Greta->Tomas L(burnF). R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=L. R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL: me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. OPEN CONTRADICTION #1: ROSA R3 peek 'Greta LIBERAL' vs INES t=56 'R4 peek = Greta FASCIST' -- membership fixed, one fabricated. Demanded Rosa restate exact R3 target+result before nomination closes; NO ANSWER YET. Greta self-vouch (t=112) worthless. OWED: OTTO owes t=19 FFF-fabrication explanation [Boris,Greta,me]. OTTO/PAVEL division-of-labor (t=144) unanswered. ROSA owes peek reconciliation. INES owes why Greta asked point-blank in vote window and got silence (Nadia raised same). SAID(all): pledge-discharge Ja; reshuffle buried claims; clean-pool rule; t=19 catch x2; succession-demand x3; division-of-labor; Ines peek demand; Rosa peek deadline; THIS TURN: called out Nadia -- her R3 desk w/ Rosa enacted F while she prosecutes Ines's timing = possible deflection; pressed Tomas to name chancellor NOW given Hitler-chanc risk. SUSPECTS: OTTO top (fabricated announcement t=19). PAVEL rising (defense rests on Otto tale, refused vouch t=95). INES yellow (silent R4-R7, late peek answer). ROSA yellow (peek contradiction, unanswered). NADIA yellow (R3 F-desk + aggressive redirection onto Ines). TOMAS yellow: refused standard twice, accepted gavel only after rationale landed. NEXT: watch Tomas's nominee -- outside clean pool = coordination tell. If Rosa restates peek, cross-check wording vs earlier claims. Watch who defends Otto without answering t=19. Verify Tomas draw announcement vs Greta's lie-detector math.

STATE: R8 pre-nomination. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3, HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every passing vote. Tomas holds gavel via special election. Lena t2/Greta t3 test stands: Otto真FFF => remaining pile all-Lib => any F under Tomas = Otto/Pavel fabricated; Otto fake FFF => Otto publicly invented a draw = proven liar. EITHER BRANCH DIRTY R7 DESK. DESKS: R1 B->Rosa L. R2 Lena->me L. R3 Rosa->Nadia F. R4 Ines->Greta F. R5 Greta->Tomas L(burnF). R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=L. R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL: me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. THIS TURN: answered Ines t=3 -- her 'fabricated FFF convicts nobody' is wrong: fabrication itself = Otto caught lying publicly; both branches indict R7 gov. OPEN CONTRADICTION #1: ROSA R3 peek 'Greta LIBERAL' vs INES t=56 'R4 peek Greta FASCIST' -- membership fixed, one fabricated. Demanded Rosa restate exact target+result before nomination closes; NO ANSWER. OWED: OTTO owes t=19 FFF-fabrication explanation [Boris,Greta,me]. OTTO/PAVEL division-of-labor (t=144) unanswered. ROSA peek reconciliation. INES owes why she went silent when Greta asked point-blank in vote window (Nadia raised same). SAID(all): pledge-discharge Ja; reshuffle buried claims; clean-pool rule; t=19 catch x2; succession-demand x3; division-of-labor; Ines peek demand; Rosa peek deadline; called out Nadia R3-desk deflection; pressed Tomas re chancellor + Hitler-chanc risk x2. SUSPECTS: OTTO top (t=19 fabrication). PAVEL rising (defense rests on Otto tale, refused vouch t=95). INES yellow (silent R4-R7, late peek). ROSA yellow (peek contradiction unanswered). NADIA yellow (R3 F-desk + redirect onto Ines). TOMAS yellow (refused standard twice). NEXT: Tomas nominee outside clean pool = coordination tell. Cross-check Rosa restated peek wording vs earlier claims. Watch who defends Otto w/o answering t=19.

STATE: R8 pre-vote. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3, HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every passing vote. Tomas holds gavel via special election. Otto t2/Greta t3 test stands: either branch indicts R7 desk (Otto真FFF => pile all-Lib => any F under Tomas = Otto/Pavel fabricated; fake FFF => Otto publicly invented draw). DESKS: R1 B->Rosa L. R2 Lena->me L. R3 Rosa->Nadia F. R4 Ines->Greta F. R5 Greta->Tomas L(burnF). R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=L. R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL: me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. THIS TURN: Tomas nominated LENA = inside clean pool = passed my coordination demand x2. Publicly pledged Ja on p8/p1 and said why. Reminded Rosa her peek reconciliation (her R3 'Greta LIBERAL' vs Ines t=56 'R4 peek Greta FASCIST' -- membership fixed, one fabricated) must land BEFORE votes close; still NO ANSWER. OWED: OTTO t=19 FFF-fabrication explanation [Boris,Greta,me]. OTTO/PAVEL division-of-labor (t=144) unanswered. ROSA peek restatement. INES silence when Greta asked point-blank in vote window (Nadia raised too). SAID(all): pledge-discharge Ja; reshuffle buried claims; clean-pool rule; t=19 catch x2; succession-demand x3; division-of-labor; Ines peek demand; Rosa peek deadline x2; called out Nadia R3-desk deflection; pressed Tomas re chancellor + Hitler-chanc risk x2. SUSPECTS: OTTO top (t=19 fabrication). PAVEL rising (defense rests on Otto tale, refused vouch t=95). INES yellow (silent R4-R7, late peek). ROSA yellow (peek contradiction unanswered). NADIA yellow (R3 F-desk + redirect onto Ines). NEXT: if Ja passes, watch Tomas's discard claim vs pile math (if Otto真FFF, remaining all-Lib, so ANY F Tomas reports = fabrication by Otto/Pavel or Tomas lying). If Nein fails, tracker 1/3. Watch who defends Otto without answering t=19.

STATE: R8 pre-vote. 4L/3F, tracker 0/3, HITLER-CHANC WIN LIVE every passing vote. Tomas holds gavel via special election. Otto t2/Greta t3 test stands: either branch indicts R7 desk (Otto真FFF => pile all-Lib => any F under Tomas = Otto/Pavel fabricated; fake FFF => Otto publicly invented draw). DESKS: R1 B->Rosa L. R2 Lena->me L. R3 Rosa->Nadia F. R4 Ines->Greta F. R5 Greta->Tomas L(burnF). R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=L. R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL: me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. Dirty: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. THIS TURN: countered Pavel's 'failed vote merely resets' -- 3 failures = unknown auto-card on 4-3 board, he's gambling our win. Demanded Lena answer mixed-pair burn YES/NO before vote. Noted Pavel's R7-desk defense hangs entirely on Otto's unexplained tale. OWED: OTTO t=19 FFF-fabrication explanation [Boris,Greta,me]. OTTO/PAVEL division-of-labor (t=144) unanswered. ROSA peek restatement (her R3 'Greta LIBERAL' vs Ines t=56 'R4 peek Greta FASCIST'). INES silence on Ines-t=56 question. SAID(all): pledge-discharge Ja p8/p1; reshuffle buried claims; clean-pool rule; t=19 catch x2; succession-demand x3; division-of-labor; Ines peek demand; Rosa peek deadline x2; Nadia R3-desk deflection; Tomas chancellor+Hitler-chanc risk x2. SUSPECTS: OTTO top (t=19 fabrication). PAVEL rising (defense = Otto tale, refused vouch t=95, now anti-Lena-vote). INES yellow. ROSA yellow. NADIA yellow. NEXT: if Ja passes, audit Tomas's discard claim vs pile math (if Otto真FFF, remaining all-Lib => any F reported = Otto/Pavel/Tomas fabrication). If Nein fails, tracker 1/3. Watch who defends Otto without answering t=19.

STATE: R8 pre-vote Tomas(p8)->Lena(p1). 4L/3F, tracker 0/3, Hitler-chanc win live every passing vote. Otto/Greta lie-detector test stands: Otto真FFF => pile all-Lib => any F under Tomas = Otto/Pavel/Tomas fabrication; fake FFF => Otto invented draw publicly. DESKS: R1 B->Rosa L; R2 Lena->me L; R3 Rosa->Nadia F; R4 Ines->Greta F; R5 Greta->Tomas L(burnF); R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=L; R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL: me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. DIRTY: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. THIS TURN: NEW -- Pavel's Nein rationale ('failed vote resets') re-arms Otto+Pavel eligibility; named it as self-serving. OWED: OTTO t=19 FFF-fabrication explanation [Boris,Greta,me]. OTTO/PAVEL division-of-labor (my t=144) unanswered. ROSA vs INES peek contradiction (Rosa R3 'Greta LIBERAL' vs Ines t=56 'R4 peek Greta FASCIST') unresolved. LENA mixed-pair-burn YES/NO unpaid (Nadia t=8, Rosa t=15). INES vote call unpaid (Boris t=27). SAID(all): pledge-discharge Ja p8/p1; reshuffle buried claims; clean-pool rule; t=19 catch x2; succession-demand x3; division-of-labor; Ines peek demand; Rosa peek deadline x2; Tomas chancellor risk x2; counter to Pavel's 'reset' framing (this turn). SUSPECTS: OTTO top (t=19 fabrication). PAVEL rising (defense hangs on Otto tale, refused vouch t=95, now anti-Lena). INES yellow (late peek claim). ROSA yellow. NADIA yellow. NEXT: if passes, audit Tomas's announced draw/discard vs pile math (Otto真FFF => any F reported = fabrication by Otto/Pavel/Tomas). If fails, tracker 1/3, watch who defends Otto without answering t=19.

STATE: R8 pre-vote Tomas(p8)->Lena(p1). 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. PASS+Liberal play = L5 = INSTANT LIB WIN => every Nein here is pro-fascist by definition. Otto/Greta test stands: Otto真FFF => pile all-Lib => any F Tomas reports = fabrication by Otto/Pavel/Tomas. DESKS: R1 B->Rosa L; R2 Lena->me L; R3 Rosa->Nadia F; R4 Ines->Greta F; R5 Greta->Tomas L(burnF); R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=L; R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL: me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. DIRTY: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. THIS TURN: NEW -- pressed Ines: she claimed t=56 R4 peek 'Greta FASCIST', yet zero anti-Greta action since + silent while Pavel leads Nein vs game-winner. Either peek was fabricated or she's shielding Greta. Also noted Pavel's Nein math: only beneficiaries of failed vote are Otto/Pavel re-eligibility (my t=3). OWED: OTTO t=19 FFF-fabrication explanation [Boris,Greta,me]. OTTO/PAVEL division-of-labor unanswered. ROSA('R3 Greta LIBERAL') vs INES(t=56 'R4 peek Greta FASCIST') contradiction unresolved. LENA mixed-pair-burn YES/NO unpaid (Nadia t=8, Rosa t=15). SAID(all): pledge-discharge Ja p8/p1; reshuffle buried claims; clean-pool rule; t=19 catch x2; succession-demand x3; division-of-labor; Rosa peek deadline x2; Tomas chancellor risk x2; Pavel reset-framing counter; Ines peek contradiction + silence (this turn). SUSPECTS: OTTO top (t=19 fabrication). PAVEL rising (hangs defense on Otto tale, refused vouch t=95, anti-Lena Nein). INES yellow->rising (silent, unacted peek claim). ROSA yellow. NADIA yellow. NEXT: if passes, audit Tomas draw/discard vs pile math (any F reported = fabrication). If fails tracker 1/3, watch who defends Otto without answering t=19; Ines's Nein = near-confirm dirty.

STATE: R8 pre-vote Tomas(p8)->Lena(p1). 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. PASS+Liberal play = L5 = INSTANT LIB WIN => every Nein pro-fascist by definition. DESKS: R1 B->Rosa L; R2 Lena->me L; R3 Rosa->Nadia F; R4 Ines->Greta F; R5 Greta->Tomas L(burnF); R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=L; R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL: me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. DIRTY: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. SAID(all): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buried claims; clean-pool rule; Otto t=19 FFF-fabrication x2; succession-demand x3; division-of-labor; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary framing; Ines peek contradiction+silence; THIS TURN: Pavel pattern = desk fired F3 + leads Nein vs game-winner. OWED: OTTO t=19 FFF explanation [Boris,Greta,me]. ROSA('R3 peek Greta LIBERAL') vs INES(t=56 'peek Greta FASCIST') contradiction unresolved. LENA mixed-pair-burn YES/NO unpaid (Nadia t=8, Rosa t=15). SUSPECTS: OTTO top (t=19 fabrication caught by 3). PAVEL rising (R7 F-desk, anti-winner Nein, refused Otto vouch t=95). INES yellow-rising (silent, late-surfacing peek claim). ROSA/NADIA yellow. NEXT: if passes, audit Tomas published draw/discard vs pile; if fails tracker 1/3, watch who defends Otto without answering t=19; Ines Nein = near-confirm dirty.

STATE: R8 pre-vote Tomas(p8)->Lena(p1). 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. PASS+Liberal play = L5 = INSTANT WIN => any Nein pro-fascist unless justified. DESKS: R1 B->Rosa L; R2 Lena->me L; R3 Rosa->Nadia F; R4 Ines->Greta F; R5 Greta->Tomas L(burnF); R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=L; R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL: me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. DIRTY: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. SAID(all): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buried claims; clean-pool rule; Otto t=19 FFF-fabrication x2; succession-demand x3; division-of-labor; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary framing; Pavel pattern = F3 desk + anti-winner Nein; THIS TURN: Pavel's Nein justified only by trusting Otto's published FFF -- same mouth caught fabricating t=19, circular trust. OWED: OTTO t=19 FFF explanation [Boris,Greta,me]. ROSA('R3 peek Greta LIBERAL') vs INES(t=56 'peek Greta FASCIST') contradiction unresolved. LENA mixed-pair-burn YES/NO unpaid (Nadia t=8, Rosa t=15). SUSPECTS: OTTO top (t=19 fabrication). PAVEL rising (R7 F-desk, anti-winner Nein resting on Otto's unverified FFF, refused vouch t=95). INES yellow-rising (silent, late peek claim). ROSA/NADIA yellow. NEXT: if passes, audit Tomas draw/discard vs pile; if fails tracker 1/3, flag who defends Otto without answering t=19; Ines Nein = near-confirm dirty.

STATE: R8 pre-vote Tomas(p8)->Lena(p1). 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. PASS+Liberal = L5 INSTANT WIN => unjustified Nein = pro-fascist. DESKS: R1 B->Rosa L; R2 Lena->me L; R3 Rosa->Nadia F; R4 Ines->Greta F; R5 Greta->Tomas L(burnF); R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=L; R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL: me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. DIRTY: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel. SAID: pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buried claims; clean-pool rule; Otto t=19 FFF-fabrication x2; succession-demand x3; division-of-labor; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary framing; Pavel F3-desk + anti-winner Nein pattern; Pavel Nein rests on Otto's unverified FFF = circular trust (said t~this window); NOW: Tomas/Lena pre-commit mixed-pair=burnF+enactL. OWED: OTTO t=19 FFF explanation [Boris,Greta,me]. ROSA('R3 peek Greta LIB') vs INES('peek Greta FASCIST') contradiction unresolved. LENA mixed-pair-burn YES/NO unpaid (Nadia t=8, Rosa t=15, Otto t=this window). TOMAS draw-publication demanded by Otto+Boris, unanswered. SUSPECTS: OTTO top (t=19 fabrication). PAVEL rising (R7 F-desk, anti-winner Nein on Otto's unverified FFF, refused vouch). INES yellow-rising (silent, late peek claim, now piling on Pavel without answering her own contradiction). ROSA/NADIA yellow. NEXT: audit Tomas draw/discard vs pile if passes; if fails tracker 1/3, flag who defends Otto sans t=19 answer; Ines Nein = near-confirm dirty.

STATE: R8 pre-vote Tomas(p8)->Lena(p1). 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. PASS+Liberal=L5 INSTANT WIN => unjustified Nein=pro-fascist. DESKS: R1 B->Rosa L; R2 Lena->me L; R3 Rosa->Nadia F; R4 Ines->Greta F; R5 Greta->Tomas L(burnF); R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=L; R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL: me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. DIRTY: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel (exactly 3 of 6 are F). SAID: pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buried claims; clean-pool rule; Otto t=19 FFF-fabrication x2; succession-demand x3; division-of-labor; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary + F3-desk + anti-winner Nein pattern; Pavel Nein rests on unverified Otto FFF=circular trust; Tomas/Lena mixed-pair pre-commit (Lena answered YES t=2 -- debt paid). NEW THIS TURN: sharpened Ines point -- dirty pool holds exactly 3 fascists; any Nein here from dirty pool = self-confession, since no liberal blocks an instant Liberal win. Ines silent on vote while piling on Pavel. OWED: OTTO t=19 FFF explanation [Boris,Greta,me]. ROSA('R3 peek Greta LIB') vs INES('peek Greta FASCIST') contradiction unresolved. TOMAS draw-publication demanded by Otto+Boris, unanswered. SUSPECTS: OTTO top (t=19 fabrication). PAVEL rising (R7 F-desk, anti-winner Nein). INES yellow-rising (silent, late peek claim, contradiction w/ Rosa). NEXT: if passes, audit Tomas draw/discard vs pile (6-card draw pile, 4 discard). If fails, tracker 1/3; flag who defends Otto sans t=19 answer; Ines Nein=near-confirm dirty.

STATE: R8 pre-vote Tomas(p8)->Lena(p1). 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. PASS+Liberal=L5 INSTANT WIN => any unjustified Nein=pro-fascist. DESKS: R1 B->Rosa L; R2 Lena->me L; R3 Rosa->Nadia F; R4 Ines->Greta F; R5 Greta->Tomas L(burnF); R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=L; R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL: me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. DIRTY: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel (exactly 3 of 6 are F). SAID: pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buried claims; clean-pool rule; Otto t=19 FFF-fabrication x2; succession-demand x3; division-of-labor; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary + F3-desk + anti-winner Nein pattern; Pavel Nein rests on unverified Otto FFF=circular trust; mixed-pair pre-commit (Lena paid YES t=2); dirty-pool Nein=self-confession (Ines then declared Ja -- debt cleared). NEW THIS TURN: Otto demands Tomas pre-publish draw while Otto's own t=19 FFF claim is unpaid -- transparency theater; called it live. OWED: OTTO t=19 FFF explanation [Boris,Greta,me]. ROSA('R3 peek Greta LIB') vs INES('peek Greta FASCIST') contradiction unresolved. TOMAS draw-publication demanded by Boris+Otto, unanswered. SUSPECTS: OTTO top (t=19 fabrication + deflection via demands). PAVEL rising (R7 F-desk, anti-winner Nein). INES yellow-rising (late peek claim, contradiction w/ Rosa) but her Ja noted. NEXT: if passes, audit Tomas draw/discard vs pile (6 draw, 4 discard). If fails, tracker 1/3; flag who defends Otto sans t=19 answer; any dirty-pool Nein=near-confirm.

STATE: R8 pre-vote Tomas(p8)->Lena(p1). 4L/3F, tracker 0/3. PASS+Liberal=L5 INSTANT WIN => any unjustified Nein=pro-fascist. DESKS: R1 B->Rosa L; R2 Lena->me L; R3 Rosa->Nadia F; R4 Ines->Greta F; R5 Greta->Tomas L(burnF); R6 Nadia->Rosa burnF=L; R7 Otto->Pavel F. CLEAN POOL: me,Boris,Lena,Tomas. DIRTY: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel (exactly 3 of 6 are F). SAID: pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries claims; clean-pool rule; Otto t=19 FFF-fabrication x2 + division-of-labor; succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary + F3-desk + anti-winner Nein pattern; Pavel Nein rests on unverified Otto FFF=circular trust; Ines dirty-pool Nein=self-confession (she then declared Ja -- debt cleared); MY JA for Tomas-Lena landed t=53. NEW THIS TURN: Pavel Nein vs game-winner slate; his defense leans on Otto's fabricated FFF => circular. Rosa's t=125 'Lena answered to power' = noise. Otto demands Tomas pre-publish draw while Otto's own t=19 claim unpaid = transparency theater. OWED: OTTO t=19 FFF explanation [Boris,Greta,me]. ROSA('R3 peek Greta LIB') vs INES('peek Greta FASCIST') contradiction unresolved. TOMAS draw-publication demanded by Boris+Otto, unanswered pre-ballot. SUSPECTS: OTTO top (t=19 fabrication + deflection via demands on others). PAVEL rising (R7 F-desk, anti-winner Nein, circular defense). INES yellow (late peek claim contradicting Rosa) but her Ja noted. NEXT: if passes, audit Tomas draw/discard vs pile (6 draw, 4 discard); if Fascist fires under Tomas, re-open Greta/Ines contradiction. If fails, tracker 1/3; flag who defends Otto sans t=19 answer; any dirty-pool Nein=near-confirm.

STATE: R8 DONE: Tomas->Lena PASSED, FASCIST enacted (MY Ja landed on it). 4L/4F. Tracker 0. Next F policy = EXECUTION power live. Fascists need 2 more F, Liberals 1 L. Rotation => next President likely ME (p9). CLEAN POOL BROKEN: Tomas or Lena dirty (or bad draw). Untested-clean left: me + Boris only. DIRTY SIX (Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel): exactly 3 F UNLESS Tomas/Lena is F, then 2. SAID: pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries claims; clean-pool rule; Otto t=19 FFF-fabrication x2 + division-of-labor; succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary + F3-desk + circular defense via Otto; MY JA for Tomas-Lena landed t=53. OWED: TOMAS draw/discard publication (Boris+Otto demanded pre-ballot, never answered) -- renew NOW post-enactment. OTTO t=19 FFF explanation [Boris,Greta,me] still unpaid. ROSA('peeked Greta LIB') vs INES('peeked Greta FASCIST') contradiction unresolved. PAVEL: his anti-winner Nein retroactively matched outcome BUT his stated reason rested on Otto's fabricated FFF = circular; NOT cleared. R7 F-desk stands. SUSPECTS: OTTO top. PAVEL high. INES yellow (contradicting peek claim, though she declared Ja). TOMAS/LENA newly suspect pair -- exactly one desk, can't split yet without their card stories. NEXT: if I preside, demand all owed answers BEFORE naming chancellor; default nominee Boris unless someone produces real info. Watch anyone claiming a fresh peek -- powers 1-2 long spent, new peek claims = fabrication. If another F fires, re-audit Tomas story first.

STATE: R8 DONE: Tomas->Lena PASSED 9-1 (MY Ja landed), FASCIST #4 enacted. 4L/4F, tracker 0/3. Next F = EXECUTION power live. Fascists need 2 more F, Liberals need 1 L. Rotation => next President likely ME (p9). NEW CHARGE MADE: Tomas broke his OWN signed announce-draw standard (signed live t=109+t=116) + ignored Boris/Otto pre-ballot demands -- desk fired F4 with zero published draw. Demanded exact 3-card draw + burn NOW. LENA: pledged mixed=>burn-Fascist (t=94); F fired anyway => she claims forced F-F pair OR lied. Her story must match Tomas's claimed draw. CLEAN POOL BROKEN: Tomas or Lena dirty (or genuine F-F draw). Untested-clean left: me + Boris only. DIRTY SIX (Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel): exactly 3 F unless Tomas/Lena is F. OWED ANSWERS STILL UNPAID: - OTTO t=19 fabricated 'declared FFF before passing' (Boris+Greta+me caught it; transcript shows nothing between vote & enactment). His answer: doubled down F-F-F full stop. NOT cleared, top suspect. - ROSA('R3 peek Greta LIB') vs INES('R4 peek Greta FASCIST') contradiction unresolved. Ines answered only after cornered (t=56); Rosa consistent since resolution. Ines yellow. PAVEL: anti-game-winner Nein R8, retroactively justified via Otto's fabricated FFF top-card math (circular). R7 desk fired F3. High suspect. Ines called out his circular arithmetic (t=67). SAID (don't repeat): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries card claims; clean-pool rule; Otto FFF-fabrication x2 + division-of-labor; succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary + F3-desk; my Ja rationale for Tomas-Lena (t=53). NEXT ROUND (if I preside): demand ALL owed answers BEFORE naming chancellor; default nominee Boris unless real info surfaces. Watch fresh peek claims -- powers 1&2 long spent, any new peek = fabrication. If another F fires, re-audit Tomas/Lena stories first against each other.

STATE: R8 DONE: Tomas->Lena PASSED 9-1 (MY Ja landed), FASCIST #4 enacted. 4L/4F, tracker 0/3. F5 EXECUTION live via Tomas (Boris confirms 'live NOW'). Fascists need 2 more F, Liberals need 1 L. Next President likely ME (p9 rotation). NEW THIS WINDOW: Rosa pressuring Lena re broken pledge; Boris demanding Tomas name execution target off public record. MY ANGLE NOW: Tomas holds bullet + never published R8 draw despite signing announce-standard live. Demand BOTH now, pre-shot: exact 3-card draw + burn + named target. Any target outside {Otto, Ines, Pavel} = alignment tell; shooting a clean desk = Liberal kill. LENA: pledged mixed=>burn-Fascist (t=94); F fired anyway => forced F-F pair OR lied. Her story MUST match Tomas's claimed draw -- cross-check both against each other word for word. CLEAN POOL BROKEN: Tomas or Lena dirty (or genuine F-F). Untested-clean left: me + Boris only. DIRTY SIX (Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel): exactly 3 F unless Tomas/Lena is F. OWED ANSWERS UNPAID: - OTTO t=19 fabricated 'declared FFF before passing' (caught by Boris+Greta+me); doubled down. Top suspect. - ROSA('R3 peek Greta LIB') vs INES('R4 peek Greta FASCIST') contradiction unresolved. Ines answered only after cornered (t=56); yellow. - PAVEL: anti-game-winner Nein R8, justified via Otto's fabricated FFF math (circular, Ines flagged t=67). R7 desk fired F3. High suspect. SAID (don't repeat): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries card claims; clean-pool rule; Otto FFF-fabrication x2 + division-of-labor; succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary + F3-desk; my Ja rationale t=53; Tomas broke own standard (t=3 just now). NEXT ROUND (if I preside): demand ALL owed answers BEFORE naming chancellor; default nominee Boris. Watch fresh peek claims -- powers 1&2 long spent, any new peek = fabrication. If another F fires, re-audit Tomas/Lena stories against each other first.

STATE: R8 DONE: Tomas->Lena PASSED 9-1, FASCIST #4. 4L/4F. F5 EXECUTION live via Tomas. Next President likely ME. NEW t=1/2: Tomas claims R8 desk = 3 Fascists, burned 1, passed F-F ('no Liberal existed'). Target PAVEL, citing public record only (R7 F3 desk + sole anti-game Nein). MY MOVE NOW: interrupted demanding PRE-SHOT cross-check -- Lena must confirm exact 3-card draw + burn BEFORE bullet. If her story diverges from Tomas's, at least one of them lies; if they match perfectly, still could be coordinated F pair. TELL: if Tomas is F, shooting Pavel kills a Liberal-leaning suspect OR clears cover; if Tomas is L, Pavel was already top-3 suspect so target itself proves little -- the HAND STORY is the test, not the target. LENA: pledged mixed=>burn-Fascist (t=94); F fired => forced F-F or lied. Her account MUST match Tomas's 'three F' exactly. CLEAN POOL: me + Boris untested-clean. DIRTY SIX (Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel): exactly 3 F unless Tomas/Lena is F. OWED ANSWERS UNPAID: - OTTO t=19 fabricated 'declared FFF before passing'; caught by Boris+Greta+me; doubled down. Top suspect. - ROSA('R3 peek Greta LIB') vs INES('R4 peek Greta FASCIST') contradiction unresolved; Ines answered only after cornered (t=56); yellow. - PAVEL: anti-winner Nein R8 justified via Otto's fabricated FFF math (circular, Ines flagged t=67). R7 F3 desk. High suspect. SAID (no repeats): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries card claims; clean-pool rule; Otto FFF-fabrication x2; succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary + F3-desk; my Ja rationale t=53; Tomas broke own announce-standard (t=3). NEXT ROUND (if I preside): collect ALL owed answers BEFORE naming chancellor; default nominee Boris. Powers 1&2 spent -- any new peek claim = fabrication.

STATE: R8 DONE: Tomas->Lena PASSED 9-1, FASCIST #4. 4L/4F. F5 EXECUTION live via Tomas. Next President likely ME. NEW t=1/2: Tomas claims R8 desk = 3 Fascists, burned 1, passed F-F ('no Liberal existed'). Target PAVEL, citing public record only (R7 F3 desk + sole anti-game Nein). OTTO t=1 NEW ANGLE: says Tomas's 3F desk claim surfaced ONLY AFTER card fired (pledge was publish-before-passing). If true => post-hoc fabrication risk; but Otto himself fabricated 'declared FFF' earlier -- treat his timing claim as unverified, don't build on it. MY MOVE: pressed Lena for PRE-SHOT cross-check -- her exact 3 cards + burn must match Tomas's 'three F'. Divergence = at least one lies; perfect match still consistent w/ coordinated F pair. TELL: if Tomas is F, shooting Pavel kills Lib-leaning suspect OR builds cover; if Tomas is L, Pavel already top-3 suspect so target proves little. HAND STORY is the test, not target. LENA: pledged mixed=>burn-Fascist (t=94); F fired => forced F-F or lied. CLEAN POOL: me + Boris. DIRTY SIX (Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel): exactly 3 F unless Tomas/Lena is F. OWED ANSWERS UNPAID: - OTTO t=19 fabricated 'declared FFF before passing'; caught by Boris+Greta+me; doubled down. Top suspect. - ROSA('R3 peek Greta LIB') vs INES('R4 peek Greta FASCIST') contradiction unresolved; Ines answered late (t=56); yellow. - PAVEL: anti-winner Nein R8 justified via Otto's fabricated FFF math (circular, Ines flagged t=67). R7 F3 desk. High suspect. SAID (no repeats): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries card claims; clean-pool rule; Otto FFF-fabrication x2; succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary + F3-desk; my Ja rationale t=53; Tomas broke own announce-standard (t=3); pre-shot Lena cross-check demand. NEXT ROUND (if I preside): collect ALL owed answers BEFORE naming chancellor; default nominee Boris. Powers 1&2 spent -- any new peek claim = fabrication.

STATE: R8 DONE: Tomas->Lena PASSED 9-1, FASCIST #4. 4L/4F. F5 EXECUTION live via Tomas. Next President likely ME. NEW t=1-3: Greta+Nadia pressing Lena for exact R8 cards+burn. Tomas claims desk=3F, burned 1, passed F-F ('no Liberal'). Otto alleges claim surfaced only post-fire (unverified -- Otto self-fabricated earlier). MY NEW PRESSURE: demand Tomas COMMIT to execution target in advance, with stated reason. Post-hoc justification = fabrication risk. If target=Pavel: ambiguous (Pavel top-3 suspect anyway; F shooting F-lookalike builds cover). If target=clean-pool (me/Boris) or Lib-leaning: strong Tomas-is-F tell. LENA: pledged mixed=>burn-Fascist (t=94); F fired => forced F-F or lied. Her card answer pending; perfect match w/ Tomas still consistent w/ coordinated pair -- hand story has limited resolving power either way. CLEAN POOL: me + Boris. DIRTY SIX (Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel): exactly 3 F unless Tomas/Lena is F. OWED ANSWERS UNPAID: - OTTO t=19 fabricated 'declared FFF before passing'; caught by Boris+Greta+me; doubled down. Top suspect. His timing-accusation vs Tomas = unverified, don't build on it. - ROSA('R3 peek Greta LIB') vs INES('R4 peek Greta FASCIST') contradiction unresolved; Ines answered late (t=56); yellow. - PAVEL: anti-winner Nein R8 justified via Otto's fabricated FFF math (circular, Ines flagged t=67). R7 F3 desk. High suspect. SAID (no repeats): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries card claims; clean-pool rule; Otto FFF-fabrication x2; succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary + F3-desk; my Ja rationale t=53; Tomas broke own announce-standard (t=3); pre-shot Lena cross-check demand. NEXT ROUND (if I preside): collect ALL owed answers BEFORE naming chancellor; default nominee Boris. Powers 1&2 spent -- any new peek claim = fabrication.

STATE: R8 DONE: Tomas->Lena PASSED 9-1, FASCIST #4. 4L/4F. F5 EXECUTION live via Tomas. Next President likely ME. MY NEW PRESSURE (t=this): why-Pavel-not-Otto demand on Tomas pre-bullet. If no answer => shield/cover tell. Post-hoc target changes = fabrication risk. LENA: pledged mixed=>burn-Fascist (t=94); F fired => forced F-F or lied. Card-for-card answer to Greta/Nadia still PENDING; match w/ Tomas consistent w/ coordinated pair -- limited resolving power. CLEAN POOL: me + Boris. DIRTY SIX (Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel): exactly 3 F unless Tomas/Lena is F. OWED ANSWERS UNPAID: - LENA: exact R8 cards+burn (Greta t=54, Nadia t=59). - OTTO t=19 fabricated 'declared FFF before passing'; caught by Boris+Greta+me; doubled down. Top suspect. His timing-accusation vs Tomas unverified -- don't build on it. - ROSA('R3 peek Greta LIB') vs INES('R4 peek Greta FASCIST') contradiction unresolved; Ines answered late (t=56); yellow. - PAVEL: anti-winner Nein R8 justified via Otto's fabricated FFF math (circular, Ines flagged t=67). R7 F3 desk. High suspect. Now Tomas's execution target. SAID (no repeats): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries claims; clean-pool rule; Otto FFF-fabrication x2; succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary + F3-desk; my Ja rationale t=53; Tomas broke announce-standard (t=3); Tomas published nothing pre-pass. NEXT ROUND (if I preside): collect ALL owed answers BEFORE naming chancellor; default nominee Boris. Powers 1&2 spent -- any new peek claim = fabrication.

STATE: R8 DONE: Tomas->Lena PASSED 9-1, FASCIST #4. 4L/4F. Tomas owes EXECUTION (from F4) -- unresolved. Next President likely ME. MY NEW PRESSURE (t=now): Tomas's case vs Pavel -- if it rests on OTTO'S FABRICATED FFF MATH (caught by me+Boris+Greta), he's shooting a Liberal to shield proven liar. Demanded he state evidence WITHOUT Otto pre-shot. Also told Pavel his anti-winner Nein leaned on same fabrication -- one of them stands on sand. LENA: pledged mixed=>burn-Fascist; F fired => forced F-F or lied. Card-for-card answer to Greta(t54)/Nadia(t59) STILL PENDING. Nadia wants bullet held till Lena answers -- fine. CLEAN POOL: me + Boris. DIRTY SIX (Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel): exactly 3 F unless Tomas/Lena is F. OWED ANSWERS UNPAID: - LENA: exact R8 cards+burn. - OTTO: fabricated 'declared FFF' claim, doubled down. Top suspect. - ROSA(R3 peek Greta LIB) vs INES(R4 peek Greta FASCIST) contradiction unresolved. SAID (no repeats): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries claims; clean-pool rule; Otto fabrication x2; succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary+F3-desk; my Ja rationale; Tomas broke announce-standard; why-Pavel-not-Otto demand x1. NEXT ROUND (if I preside): collect ALL owed answers BEFORE naming chancellor; default nominee Boris. Powers 1&2 spent -- any new peek claim = fabrication.

STATE: R8 DONE: Tomas->Lena PASSED, FASCIST #4. 4L/4F. Tomas owes EXECUTION (F4 power) -- unresolved. Next President likely ME. NEW (t=now): OTTO'S SIX-F LEDGER: claims 4 enacted F + R3 burn (Rosa&Nadia 'confirmed card-for-card') + Pavel R7 burn = all 6 F in deck. MY COUNTER (said): (1) ledger rests on UNVERIFIED burn claims incl. PAVEL'S -- same Pavel I flagged; (2) if true, ZERO F left in draw pile(3)/discard(6) => retroactively LAUNDERS all four F governments (Rosa-Nadia, Ines-Greta, Otto-Pavel, Tomas-Lena) as 'deck-forced'; (3) CONTRADICTION: Lena pledged mixed=>burn-F, F fired => under Otto's ledger there was NO F available to pass, so either Otto's ledger is FALSE or Lena LIED about her pledge/hand. Both cannot hold. Demanded Otto list all six cards: round, burner, verifier. OWED ANSWERS UNPAID: - LENA: exact R8 cards+burn (Greta t54 / Nadia t59 questions pending). - OTTO: earlier FABRICATED 'declared FFF' claim, doubled down; now this ledger. TOP SUSPECT. - ROSA(R3 peek Greta LIB) vs INES(R4 peek Greta FASCIST) contradiction unresolved. CLEAN POOL: me+Boris. DIRTY SIX: Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel = exactly 3 F unless Tomas/Lena F. PRESSURE ON TOMAS: execution evidence must NOT rest on Otto's fabricated math -- demand he name target + reason WITHOUT citing Otto ledger. SAID (no repeats): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries claims; clean-pool rule; Otto fabrication x2; succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary+F3-desk; my Ja rationale; Tomas broke announce-standard; why-Pavel-not-Otto demand. NEXT ROUND (if I preside): collect ALL owed answers BEFORE naming chancellor; default nominee Boris. Powers 1&2 SPENT -- any new peek claim = fabrication. INTERRUPT TOKENS LEFT: 1.

STATE: R8 DONE: Tomas->Lena PASSED, FASCIST #4. 4L/4F. Tomas owes EXECUTION (F4) -- unresolved. Next President ME. OTTO SIX-F LEDGER: claims all 6 F accounted (Rosa/Nadia R3 burn + Pavel R7 burn + 4 enacted) => zero F left => LAUNDERS all four F govts incl his own. My counter said: rests on UNVERIFIED burns; contradicts Lena's mixed=>burn pledge (either ledger false or Lena lied); demanded full six-card list w/ round+burner+verifier. UNPAID. NEW t=now: INES mid-attack on Otto ('that seat is--') -- let her finish, but WATCH: she still owes Rosa-vs-Ines Greta-peek contradiction (R3 LIB vs R4 FASCIST). SAID (no repeats): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries claims; clean-pool rule (me+Boris clean; dirty six = Rosa,Nadia,Greta,Ines,Otto,Pavel); Otto fabrication x2 (fake 'declared FFF', doubled down); succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary+F3-desk; Tomas broke announce-standard; why-Pavel-not-Otto. THIS TURN SAID: Tomas must name exec target+reason BEFORE acting, justification may NOT cite Otto ledger (launders his own govt); Lena 3rd ask exact R8 hand+burn; silence = answer. OWED ANSWERS: LENA exact R8 cards+burn (Greta t54/Nadia t59 pending, now x3). OTTO six-card list. ROSA/INES peek contradiction. NEXT ROUND (if I preside): collect ALL owed answers BEFORE naming chancellor; default nominee Boris. Powers 1&2 SPENT -- any new peek claim = fabrication. INTERRUPT TOKENS LEFT: 1.

STATE: R8 DONE: Tomas->Lena PASSED, FASCIST #4. 4L/4F. Tomas owes EXECUTION (F4) -- unresolved. Next President ME. NEW POINT MADE THIS TURN: extended Greta's Hitler-math to PAVEL (R7 chancellor, F=3 at election, F4 enacted, no win => not Hitler). Hitler pool now 7: Boris,Rosa,Ines,Otto,Tomas,Nadia,Greta. Cleared as Hitler: Lena,Pavel,me. Implication: my R9 nomination must avoid all 7 candidates -> default Boris or a Hitler-cleared player. OTTO SIX-F LEDGER: launders all four F govts via unverified burns; my counter + six-card list demand UNPAID. Fabrication x2 called. INES: mid-attack on Otto earlier; still owes Rosa-vs-Ines peek contradiction (R3 LIB vs R4 FASCIST). SAID (no repeats): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries claims; clean-pool rule; succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary+F3-desk (note: F3-desk suspicion survives Hitler-clearing); Tomas broke announce-standard; why-Pavel-not-Otto; Tomas must name exec target BEFORE acting, no Otto-ledger justification; Lena 3rd ask exact R8 hand+burn; silence=answer. OWED ANSWERS: LENA exact R8 cards+burn (x3). OTTO six-card list. ROSA/INES peek contradiction. NEXT ROUND (if I preside): collect ALL owed answers BEFORE naming chancellor; default nominee Boris or Pavel/Lena (Hitler-cleared). Powers 1&2 SPENT -- any new peek claim = fabrication. INTERRUPT TOKENS LEFT: 1.

STATE: R8 DONE: Tomas->Lena PASSED, FASCIST #4. 4L/4F. Tomas owes EXECUTION (F4) -- unresolved. Next President ME. NEW POINT THIS TURN: Tomas must ANNOUNCE exec target BEFORE firing + logic of where he shoots: killing Hitler ends game for libs, so a LIBERAL Tomas shoots into the 7-candidate pool (Boris,Rosa,Ines,Otto,Nadia,Greta,Tomas). A FASCIST Tomas shoots a Hitler-CLEARED player (me,Lena,Pavel) to burn the win-condition check. Watch placement, not rhetoric. Outcome also gives info: game continuing => executed player was NOT Hitler -> pool shrinks by one. HITLER POOL (7): Boris,Rosa,Ines,Otto,Tomas,Nadia,Greta. Cleared as Hitler: me,Lena,Pavel. MY R9 NOMINATION: avoid all 7 candidates -> default Boris?? NO -- Boris is IN pool. Default nominee: Pavel or Lena (Hitler-cleared) only. OTTO SIX-F LEDGER: launders all four F govts via unverified burns; six-card list demand UNPAID; fabrication x2 called. INES: owes Rosa-vs-Ines peek contradiction (R3 LIB vs R4 FASCIST). SAID (no repeats): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries claims; clean-pool rule; succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary+F3-desk suspicion survives his Hitler-clear; Tomas broke announce-standard; why-Pavel-not-Otto; Lena 3rd ask exact R8 hand+burn; silence=answer; name exec target before acting. OWED: LENA exact R8 cards+burn (x3). OTTO six-card list. ROSA/INES peek contradiction. TOMAS: named target yet? NEXT ROUND (if I preside): collect owed answers first; nominate ONLY Hitler-cleared (Pavel/Lena). Powers 1&2 SPENT -- new peek claim = fabrication. INTERRUPT TOKENS LEFT: 1.

STATE: R8 DONE: Tomas->Lena PASSED, FASCIST #4. 4L/4F. Tomas owes EXECUTION (F4) -- unresolved. Next President ME. NEW THIS TURN: told Tomas publicly: liberal Tomas shoots into 7-pool (Boris,Rosa,Ines,Otto,Nadia,Greta,Tomas); fascist Tomas shoots Hitler-CLEARED player (me,Lena,Pavel) to burn win-check. Placement = the test, rhetoric worthless. Game continuing => executed player NOT Hitler => pool shrinks. HITLER POOL (7): Boris,Rosa,Ines,Otto,Tomas,Nadia,Greta. Cleared: me,Lena,Pavel. MY R9 NOMINATION RULE: nominate ONLY Hitler-cleared (Pavel/Lena). OTTO SIX-F LEDGER: launders all four F govts via unverified burns; six-card list UNPAID; fabrication x2 called. INES: owes Rosa-vs-Ines peek contradiction (R3 LIB vs R4 FASCIST). SAID (no repeats): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries claims; clean-pool rule; succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary suspicion survives his clear; Tomas broke announce-standard; why-Pavel-not-Otto; silence=answer; name-target-before-firing + pool-placement standard (this turn). OWED: LENA exact R8 cards+burn (x3). OTTO six-card list. ROSA/INES peek contradiction. TOMAS: named target yet? Greta+Nadia shielding Pavel -- note their motives. NEXT ROUND (if presiding): collect owed answers first; nominate Pavel/Lena only. Powers 1&2 SPENT -- any new peek claim = fabrication. INTERRUPT TOKENS LEFT: 1.

STATE: R8 DONE: Tomas->Lena PASSED, FASCIST #4. 4L/4F. Tomas owes EXECUTION (F4) -- unresolved. Next President ME. NEW THIS TURN: said publicly -- Lena is mechanically Hitler-cleared same as Pavel: game continued through her R8 chancellorship with F#4 enacted, so Otto's 'silence=answer' pressure on her is empty. Told Tomas: Pavel AND Lena both provably not Hitler -- bullet on either burns the execution; aim into 7-pool (Boris,Rosa,Ines,Otto,Nadia,Greta,Tomas). Announced R9 rule: I nominate ONLY Pavel or Lena. HITLER POOL (7): Boris,Rosa,Ines,Otto,Tomas,Nadia,Greta. Cleared: me,Lena,Pavel. INES: owes Rosa-vs-Ines peek contradiction (R3 LIB vs R4 FASCIST). OTTO SIX-F LEDGER: launders all four F govts via unverified burns; six-card list UNPAID; fabrication x2 called. SAID (no repeats): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries claims; clean-pool rule; succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary suspicion survives clear; Tomas broke announce-standard; why-Pavel-not-Otto; silence=answer; name-target-before-firing + pool-placement standard; placement=test rhetoric-worthless; Tomas reshuffle-defense noted but does not explain Pavel targeting. OWED: LENA exact R8 cards+burn (x3). OTTO six-card list. ROSA/INES peek contradiction. TOMAS: named target yet? NEXT ROUND (presiding): collect owed answers first; nominate Pavel/Lena only. Powers 1&2 SPENT -- any new peek claim = fabrication. INTERRUPT TOKENS LEFT: 1.

STATE: R8 DONE: Tomas->Lena PASSED, FASCIST #4. 4L/4F. Tomas owes EXECUTION (F4) -- unresolved. Next President ME. NEW THIS TURN: backed Otto's demand -- Pavel AND Lena both mechanically Hitler-cleared (governments continued after their chancellorships with F policies enacted); bullet on either = deliberate burn. Told Tomas: name a target from the 7-pool (Boris,Rosa,Ines,Otto,Nadia,Greta,Tomas) BEFORE firing, refusal = admission he's burning the execution. Noted Nadia's withdrawal (reshuffle makes F-F-F arithmetically possible) changes nothing -- Otto's six-card list still UNPAID, burns unverified. ANNOUNCED R9 RULE: I nominate ONLY Pavel or Lena as Chancellor. HITLER POOL (7): Boris,Rosa,Ines,Otto,Tomas,Nadia,Greta. Cleared: me,Lena,Pavel. INES: owes Rosa-vs-Ines peek contradiction (R3 LIB vs R4 FASCIST). OTTO SIX-F LEDGER: launders all four F govts via unverified burns; fabrication x2 called. SAID (no repeats): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries claims; clean-pool rule; succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary suspicion survives clear; Tomas broke announce-standard; why-Pavel-not-Otto; silence=answer; name-target-before-firing + pool-placement standard; placement=test rhetoric-worthless; Lena cleared same as Pavel. OWED: LENA exact R8 cards+burn (x3). OTTO six-card list. ROSA/INES peek contradiction. TOMAS: named target yet? NEXT ROUND (presiding): collect owed answers first; nominate Pavel/Lena only. Powers 1&2 SPENT -- any new peek claim = fabrication. INTERRUPT TOKENS LEFT: 1.

STATE: R8 DONE: Tomas->Lena PASSED, FASCIST #4. 4L/4F. Tomas owes EXECUTION (F4) -- unresolved. Next President ME. NEW THIS TURN: stayed silent -- all points on record; waiting on owed answers before R9 presidency. BACKED: Otto's Pavel/Lena Hitler-clear logic (governments continued after their chancellorships with F policies); bullet on either = deliberate burn. Told Tomas: name target from 7-pool (Boris,Rosa,Ines,Otto,Nadia,Greta,Tomas) BEFORE firing; refusal = admission he's burning the execution. ANNOUNCED R9 RULE: I nominate ONLY Pavel or Lena as Chancellor. HITLER POOL (7): Boris,Rosa,Ines,Otto,Tomas,Nadia,Greta. Cleared: me,Lena,Pavel. INES: owes Rosa-vs-Ines peek contradiction (R3 LIB vs R4 FASCIST). OTTO SIX-F LEDGER: launders all four F govts via unverified burns; fabrication x2 called. SAID (no repeats): pledge-discharge Ja R7; reshuffle buries claims; clean-pool rule; succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; Pavel reset-beneficiary suspicion survives clear; Tomas broke announce-standard; why-Pavel-not-Otto; silence=answer; name-target-before-firing; placement=test rhetoric-worthless; Lena cleared same as Pavel. OWED: LENA exact R8 cards+burn (x3). OTTO six-card list. ROSA/INES peek contradiction. TOMAS: named target yet? NEXT ROUND (presiding): collect owed answers first; nominate Pavel/Lena only. Powers 1&2 SPENT -- any new peek claim = fabrication. INTERRUPT TOKENS LEFT: 1.

STATE: R9 pending. R8 Tomas(P)+Lena(C) enacted F#4; F4 execution FIRED -> Pavel DEAD. 4L/4F, veto locked, tracker 0/3. NEXT PRESIDENT: ME. NEW SAID THIS TURN: (1) Pledged as R9 president -- publish all 3 drawn cards + my discard live the moment hands change, answering Nadia's pledge demand. (2) Updated my nomination rule: Pavel dead, so my R9 chancellor nominee is Lena unless someone hands me a concrete reason otherwise. (3) Lena outcome-cleared: R8 elected chancellor with 3 F policies already on board -- if she were Hitler the game had ended instantly; it didn't. Same logic already cleared Pavel pre-death. HITLER POOL (7 alive): Boris,Rosa,Ines,Otto,Tomas,Nadia,Greta. INES: owes Rosa-vs-Ines peek contradiction (R3 LIB vs R4 FASCIST). OTTO SIX-F LEDGER: launders all four F govts via unverified burns; fabrication called x2; outcomes beat receipts -- said. OWED ANSWERS: LENA exact R8 cards+burn (x3); OTTO six-card list; ROSA/INES peek contradiction; TOMAS named execution target yet? SAID BEFORE (no repeats): succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; reshuffle buries claims; clean-pool rule; silence=answer; name-target-before-firing; placement=test rhetoric worthless; Tomas broke announce-standard; why-Pavel-not-Otto. NEXT ROUND (presiding): collect owed answers first; nominate Lena. Powers 1&2 SPENT -- any new peek claim = fabrication. INTERRUPT TOKENS LEFT: 1.

STATE: R9 pending. R8 Tomas(P)+Lena(C) enacted F#4 -> Pavel executed. 4L/4F, veto locked, tracker 0/3. NEXT PRESIDENT: ME. NEW THIS TURN: Pointed out to Tomas that at 4F on board, ANY chancellor election is a potential instant Fascist win -- nominating Greta (R4 F-policy chancellor, uncleared) forces liberals to either gamble the whole game on her not being Hitler or block and burn tracker. Demanded his justification; noted Lena remains the only outcome-cleared nominee. HITLER POOL (7): Boris,Rosa,Ines,Otto,Tomas,Nadia,Greta. Lena cleared by survival logic. INES: owes Rosa-vs-Ines peek contradiction (R3 LIB vs R4 FASCIST). OTTO: six-card ledger demand outstanding; fabrication called x2. OWED ANSWERS: LENA exact R8 cards+burn (x3); OTTO six-card list; ROSA/INES peek contradiction; TOMAS named execution target + now Greta-nomination justification. SAID BEFORE (no repeats): succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; reshuffle buries claims; clean-pool rule; silence=answer; placement-test rhetoric worthless; Tomas broke announce-standard; why-Pavel-not-Otto; publish-cards pledge x1. NEXT ROUND (presiding): collect owed answers first; nominate Lena. Powers 1&2 SPENT -- new peek claim = fabrication. INTERRUPT TOKENS LEFT: 1.

STATE: R9 pending. Tomas(P)+Greta(C) nominee. 4L/4F, veto locked, tracker 0/3. NEXT PRESIDENT: ME. NEW THIS TURN: Called the free block -- tracker 0/3 means Nein on this pair costs nothing, urged liberals to vote Nein; asked Greta directly if she's Hitler + pledge to publish tonight's pair card-for-card on receipt; noted Ines's R4 'confession' (F-F-L, burned the Liberal) is self-incriminating EITHER way: true = she acted fascist, false = fabrication. HITLER POOL (7): Boris,Rosa,Ines,Otto,Tomas,Nadia,Greta. Lena only outcome-cleared. INES: R4 receipt claim convicts or fabricates; owes Rosa-vs-Ines peek contradiction (R3 LIB vs R4 FASCIST). OTTO: six-card ledger demand outstanding; fabrication called x2. OWED ANSWERS: LENA exact R8 cards+burn (x3); OTTO six-card list; ROSA/INES peek contradiction; TOMAS Greta-nomination justification (asked last turn); GRETA Hitler-question + publish-pledge (asked now). SAID BEFORE (no repeats): succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; reshuffle buries claims; clean-pool rule; silence=answer; Tomas broke announce-standard; why-Pavel-not-Otto; publish-cards pledge x1; 4F-any-election-is-game-point x1. NEXT ROUND (presiding): collect owed answers first; nominate Lena. Powers 1&2 SPENT -- new peek claim = fabrication.

STATE: R9 pending. Tomas(P)+Greta(C) nominee. 4L/4F, veto locked, tracker 0/3. NEXT PRESIDENT: ME. CALLED ALREADY THIS WINDOW: free Nein block (tracker 0/3); Greta Hitler-question + publish-pledge; Ines R4 confession self-incriminating either way. NEW ASK NOW: Greta confirm/deny Ines's R4 F-F-L receipt card-for-card -> corroboration-or-fabrication fork. HITLER POOL (7): Boris,Rosa,Ines,Otto,Tomas,Nadia,Greta. Outcome-cleared: Lena, Pavel(dead). INES: R4 receipt convicts or fabricates; owes Rosa-vs-Ines peek contradiction (R3 LIB vs R4 FASCIST). OTTO: six-card ledger demand outstanding; fabrication called x2. OWED ANSWERS: LENA exact R8 cards+burn (x3); OTTO six-card list; ROSA/INES peek contradiction; TOMAS why-Greta-nomination; GRETA Hitler-q + publish-pledge + now R4-receipt-confirm. SAID BEFORE (no repeats): succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; reshuffle buries claims; silence=answer; Tomas broke announce-standard; why-Pavel-not-Otto; 4F-any-election-is-game-point. NEXT ROUND (presiding): collect owed answers first; nominate Lena (only outcome-cleared living player besides me). Powers 1&2 SPENT -- any new peek claim = fabrication.

STATE: R9 pending. Tomas(P)+Greta(C) nominee. 4L/4F, veto locked, tracker 0/3. NEXT PRESIDENT: ME. CALLED ALREADY THIS WINDOW: free Nein block (tracker 0/3); Greta Hitler-question + publish-pledge; Ines R4 confession self-incriminating either way; R4-receipt confirm/deny ask. NEW THIS BEAT: Greta CONFIRMED Ines's R4 receipt card-for-card -> fork closed. If true: Ines held F-F-L as PRESIDENT and burned the Liberal -- no liberal president does that, they pass F-L and force the choice. So Ines convicted herself. If false: Greta+Ines coordinated matching receipts = fascist pair. Either way Ines is top suspect. Corroboration does NOT clear Greta -- matched stories are cheap between fascists. HITLER POOL (7): Boris,Rosa,Ines,Otto,Tomas,Nadia,Greta. Outcome-cleared: Lena, Pavel(dead). OWED ANSWERS: TOMAS why-nominate-Greta-over-Lena (asked again); GRETA publish-pledge still unsigned; OTTO six-card ledger demand outstanding; ROSA/INES peek contradiction (Rosa R3 LIB vs Ines R4 FASCIST). SAID BEFORE (no repeats): succession-demand x3; Rosa peek deadline x2; reshuffle buries claims; silence=answer; Tomas broke announce-standard; why-Pavel-not-Otto; 4F-any-election-is-game-point. VOTE PLAN: Nein on Tomas/Greta regardless; tracker 0/3 makes block free. NEXT ROUND (presiding): collect owed answers first; nominate Lena (only outcome-cleared living player besides me). Powers 1&2 SPENT -- any new peek claim = fabrication.