On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> That's worth a test, but I think the cleanup procedure is still as
> specified by an instrument of power-1. Haven't we similarly tested
> that dependent actions occur at the power of each specifically defined
> dependent action, and not at the power of R1728?
I believe the situations are different. In that case (CFJ 2366), you noted:
> The problem is, that R1728(a) requires the rules as a whole to authorize
> the performer to perform the action, and doesn't in itself "add" to that
> explicit authority (if it did "add" it would be self-referentially
> meaningless).
because the relevant part of Rule 1728 was:
a) The rules explicitly authorize the performer to perform the
action by a set of one or more of the following methods (N
is 1 if not otherwise specified):
however, in this case, the cleanup procedure is just a procedure;
anyone can define a procedure. There is no requirement that the rule
defining it also authorize it to take effect.
