Proto: A Clarification is a type of instrument that always has 0.1 power. A clarification may only clarify existing rules, and may not have any functionality not already provided by a reasonably plausible interpretation of a rules; any other functionality is INEFFECTIVE. [Maybe: remove this sentence to avoid crazy meta-CFJs, letting the Moot system handle bad Clarifications?] The Rulekeepor SHALL include the text of all Clarifications in the Full Logical Ruleset, and SHOULD list them near relevant rules.
When submitting a nontrivial judgment of TRUE, FALSE or PARADOXICAL, a judge CAN and SHOULD propose the text for one or more Clarifications. Once a Judgement has been in place for more than seven days without being entered into Moot, or has been entered into Moot with a result of AFFIRM or FAILED QUORUM, Clarifications are created with the specified text. Any player may destroy a Clarification Without Objection, and SHOULD do so if it becomes irrelevant. — This is pretty similar to the annotations we already had on old FLRs, but given force and a legal requirement for the Rulekeepor to keep track of them. After this is in effect for a while, it might be worth getting rid of the current informal precedent system (in the form of a suggestion of how to judge CFJs). Gaelan
