The Five Rings · Federal law · Path 2 amendment

LP-075 — Path 2 Commencement Duty Act

A narrow procedural successor, enacted after the first Path 2 window closed lawfully without a run. It compels the test and leaves the result to the existing Path 2 rules.

LP-075 — register entry Amended Charter §12.3 LP-074 — conditional rate authority 2294 certification record

Question presented

When the civilization has enacted a conditional rate schedule, must it conduct the audit capable of activating or rejecting that schedule? The Act answers yes as to commencement. Evidence remains required before any rate moves, but omission may not become an undeclared permanent veto.

Operative provisions

Section	Rule
§1 — Scope	The Act applied while an LP-074 schedule remained unresolved. It preserves the $10 million threshold, every SCM parameter, sub-threshold bracket administration, stream separation, and every statutory evidentiary condition.
§2 — Commencement duty	In each decennial window, at least one lawful process commencement had to be attempted for a schedule legally ready for its own evidence pathway. A Path 2 run for Schedule A could not certify Schedule B, which required LP-074 §6’s separate Lower Incidence Certificate.
§3 — Remedial first run	Because the 2279–2288 window closed without a run, a Commission had to be constituted within 180 days of enactment, lock by the amended deadline, and publish through the existing Registrar, escrow, reproducibility, and cold-review mechanisms. The resulting lock in 2292 belongs to the 2289–2298 window and does not rewrite the first window.
§4 — Outcome neutrality	A certification, failure, or legally recognized void is governed by the pre-existing Path 2 rules. The Act compels an answer, not a certification. No chamber may command a desired result or impose a second political vote after a valid certificate.
§5 — Anti-dissolution	A constituted Commission that fails to lock without a recognized competence or integrity justification triggers replacement constitution, public attribution, and the standing Meritboard sanction process. A qualifying §12.4(b) void retains its non-consumption and replacement consequence. Strategic non-locking cannot recreate the inaction veto.
§6 — Separate termination	The duty terminates separately when the relevant schedule certifies, fails, is lawfully repealed or superseded, or another law expressly resolves it. The 2294 record certified Schedule A and then independently certified Schedule B after B1–B6 passed.

Completed effect. In the 2294 record, Findings I–IV passed and Schedule A certified. The independent Lower Incidence Certificate passed B1–B6 and certified Schedule B. Valid notice made 50 / 25 / 12.5 / 6.25 effective in 2295.

Express limits

No rate changes directly through LP-075.
No weakening of Schedule A or Schedule B, no favorable behavioral input, and no cross-credit among the Main, ADT, and Lower streams.
No revival of the failed RATIFY-TAX-50 petition or its authored figures.
No upper-layer speculative shelter, property-attribution exception, currency-conversion exception, or SCM change.

Ratification record

Gate	Result	Recorded reasoning
Meritboard	73% — met	Mandatory measurement protects process integrity without weakening any success condition. The institutional cost of a mandatory cadence produced the narrow margin.
Supreme Court	7 / 10 — met	Compelling an audit does not prejudge its fact-finding, though the amendment changes a deliberately permissive method.
Sanctuary	97% — met	After generations at the 70% upper rate, and a 94% vote for LP-074, residents rejected non-commencement as a substitute for a factual determination.
Main Layer	84% — met	Both enterprise capacity and legislative integrity supported an audit that still protects Main-treasury obligations.
Lower-Layer Aggregate	72% — met	Lower-layer observers supported obtaining an answer while retaining Schedule B’s separate incidence protections.
Presidency	Veto not exercised	The Act keeps process compulsion separate from factual certification.

Historical construction

The original 2279 §12.3 imposed no duty to constitute or lock a Commission, so the first window’s lack of a run proved neither that 50% was safe nor that it was unsafe. The later amendment records a procedural finding, not an evidentiary one: a conditional law can be defeated by omission when no institution is obligated to perform the test. The original text remains visible in the amended Charter.