G. wrote:
If a rule with higher power defers to a rule of lower power, and the
deference is allowed to work, then the lower powered rule could be
modified (using an instrument of a lower power) to do something else,
thus modifying the operation of the higher-powered rule with a lower-
powered change.
This breaks the idea of Rule 2140, which says that:
No entity with power below the power of this rule can [...]
set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument
with power greater than its own. A "substantive" aspect of
an instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument's
operation.
So it's perfectly in keeping with this intent to forbid rules from
deferring to lower powers, with that prohibition at the highest
possible level.
I never understood this one, myself. Consider:
Rule 3000a (Power = 2) The sky is dark green. This rule defers to
other rules stating that it's lighter.
Rule 3000b (Power = 2) The sky is dark green, unless other rules
state that it's lighter.
Rule 3000c (Power = 2) The sky is dark green, however other rules
may modify this to something lighter.
Rule 3001 (Power = 1) The sky is light-ish red.
In all three cases, you'd think that the Power 2 rule is setting or
modifying its own substantive aspect (by allowing other rules to do as
they please). The deference clause seems to insist on an implicit "other
rules of equal/higher power" in 3000a, but not the others.
Maybe the original intent was to allow drawing this distinction in fewer
words, but that trips things up as soon as someone loses track (similar
to recent Mother May I headaches).
