============================== CFJ 1690 ==============================
Caller's Arguments:
A challenge should be direct and specific to a proposal, or at least specific to the precise votes being challenged, to prevent the R2034 challenge limit clock from expiring. It is not enough to challenge a deeper point of law which has an implied, but not explicitly stated or mentioned knock=on effect, otherwise the pragmatic nature of the proposal protection system in R2034 is broken.
Hmm. If this is judged true, are there any other proposals that we "corrected" due to CFJs with implicit knock-on effects, when in fact we should have stuck with the originally-announced result due to R2034?
