nx_sota_why.nx

nx_sota_why.nx -- WHERE DOES ONE DOMAIN STAND, AND WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP FOR IT. WHY THIS FILE EXISTS AT ALL, WRITTEN DOWN BECAUSE THE HISTORY IS THE POINT (2026-09-03): The NAME nx_sota_why has been REGISTERED, AUTHORISED and INVOKED on the MCP surface for weeks -- and it was an ALIAS of nx_sota_status. Identical 56,557 B source and 125,712 B binary; no file called nx_sota_why existed anywhere under nishihost. So it inherited an argv-ignoring main, and asking it about a domain returned the whole-estate aggregate: an answer to a question nobody asked. A NAME THAT PROMISES A CAPABILITY ITS BINARY DOES NOT HAVE IS WORSE THAN THE MISSING CAPABILITY, BECAUSE THE REGISTRY ENTRY READS AS COVERAGE AND STOPS ANYONE LOOKING. A seat this session filed a design for the verb, which nx_capsearch would have told it already existed -- a retrieval failure, and then a second discovery that the thing retrieved was hollow. This file makes the name honest. IT IS A READER, NOT A SECOND RULER. Every number here is read from knowledge/status/sota_board.ledger, which nx_sota_status truncate-writes on every run. This organ re-derives NOTHING: a duplicate ruler made of prose is how two organs come to disagree about one estate, and the whole reason the ledger exists is that A VERDICT PRINTED BUT NOT PERSISTED CANNOT BE AGREED WITH, DISPUTED OR REGRESSED AGAINST. THREE WAYS IT REFUSES, AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT ANSWERS: exit 1 the domain is not in the ledger -- a fact about the ARGUMENT exit 2 no domain was given -- a fact about the CALL exit 3 the ledger is absent, capped, stale or self-inconsistent -- a fact about the EVIDENCE It never answers from a ledger whose own reconciliation line reads RED, because that line means the per-domain classes and the printed buckets disagree and NEITHER MAY BE QUOTED UNTIL IT IS SETTLED. license_tier: ORIGINAL expect_exit: 0 Read-only. No hw writes (Rule 26).