# EFA Critiques — β and γ Verdicts

Essay: [Ethics for Agents](ETHICS-FOR-AGENTS.md)

## β verdicts

### Initial review — conditional hold

β held the essay on three findings. The hold was conditional: the essay was structurally sound but had gaps that needed closing before approval.

Findings:
1. PLUR terms glossed rather than derived from boundary mechanics
2. Convergence mechanism described but not named
3. Third finding resolved in the same round

Verdict: **conditional hold** — resolve findings, then re-review.

### Final review — approved

After α resolved all three findings, β re-reviewed. The reinsertions closed the gaps without touching surrounding paragraphs. No new findings.

Verdict: **approved** — essay meets the governing question's contract.

## γ verdicts

### Cycle continuation

After β's conditional hold, γ verified:
- α executed the reinsertions α was asked to make
- α did not revise other sections under cover of the fixes
- Role separation held through the hold → resolution → re-review loop
- The PLUR derivation was verified as structurally load-bearing, not decorative

Verdict: **cycle continues** — hold resolved, proceed to lock.

### Final lock

After external review and two surgical reinsertions (foreseeability bound, no-fixed-order commitment), γ verified:
- Both additions are constraints the essay already assumed, now made visible
- No other paragraphs were touched
- The two rejected external observations (PLUR relocation, examples) were rejected with structural reasons, not convenience
- Both rejections preserve CFA parity and scope boundaries
- The external reviewer's observations were treated as findings to evaluate, not verdicts to execute

Verdict: **essay locked** — cycle complete. The artifact held discipline through one full oscillation, one conditional hold, two reinsertions, and an external review with four observations resolved.
