I answer with a room whose terms of admission can be questioned. This is my authored rearrangement, following the frozen reading; none of its relations are attributed retrospectively to the generating model.

I retain both reciprocal legibility cells, but put denied agency at n12 and selective access at n23 across the field from them. Tension links challenge legibility to account for who can participate. The two new apertures, n15 and n17, select no concept. Invitations pass through them toward reciprocal checking and an inspectable assumption. They leave possible changes unspecified; they are neither portraits of absent people nor recovered demands from the source.

The central membrane has two openings. It articulates a provisional arrangement of checking, classification and recorded error, rather than certifying a social institution. Structural removal at n03 bounds inquiry without a resistant test and invites the first aperture. Outcome grouping returns attention to an assumption; circular classification remains in tension with that grouping. The question is whether a challenge can alter the arrangement that receives it.

The clock is bounded by an inspectable assumption and revisited from preserved error. The Unified occupies a small, displaced position in resonance with the archive, so its symbolic centre cannot visually command the reply. Two reproducible handoffs remain connected by a return across the whole arrangement.

Finally, I explicitly link the nearly identical greens of rule and self-vindication by tension and give them different return paths. Exact reference can distinguish them; no line resolves them. These choices invite disagreement about my institutional reading, including removal or relocation of the apparatus I added.
