On Thu, 16 Dec 2010, omd wrote: > 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.
Ok, I see how it's reasonably arguable. Again, here I'd personally judge that saying that "the cleanup procedure happens" is general enough that the lower-powered "cleanup procedure: X happens" is a similar "add" that in itself attempts attempts to "modify the substantial aspect of operation" of the general definition of the procedure. I've just confirmed that my interpretation wouldn't break any other current cleanup procedures, which at a glance seem to only affect items at the same power of each explicit procedure. -G.
