Time to Stay, Room to Refuse answers the source's unfinished agreements by asking who has the time and support to keep them unfinished. Care work becomes the ground at A1 and returns as practice at G6. This is labor that supports needs, not merely caring sentiment. At A6, indirect care work invites the open invitation at A8. The invitation also faces maintenance-time deprivation at A4 and opportunity cost at A7. I propose that an available conversation can still be costly to enter. Social participation beyond bodily co-presence at A3 makes room for connection that does not require everyone to remain visibly assembled.

The response gives bounded refusal unusual prominence. At A5 it limits the invitation, and at G1 it becomes the ground from which care is reconsidered. G1 bounds G6: care need not require compliance with each request. But Love & Freedom at G5 also bounds G1, and care withdrawn at lost utility at G4 remains in tension with it. These links ask readers to distinguish a specific refusal that preserves other appropriate help from abandonment once another person becomes less useful. No generic license to withdraw is supplied.

B1 and F9 repeat unequal exit from public-service failure. Some participants can leave a failing institution more safely than others. This changes what provisional practice at B6 must attend to: its limits include informed consent at B5 and the delayed cost of an apparently successful interaction at B4. Immediate responsiveness does not establish lasting benefit. The explicit limit from verified replacement at C5 to reversible commitment at B8 asks whether an essential route actually survives a promised revision. F2 places a nominal extra that has become essential beside the dependency test at F1; sensitivity to removal requires inquiry into actual need.

The source's record of correction remains at C6. Repairability at D1 is transposed toward it as a declared metaphor, retaining the product concept's scope rather than deriving a social law. Recognition at C3 faces benevolent provision without participation at C4. Useful amenities cannot settle whose judgment governs provision.

At E1 the invitation is a starting point, bounded by the uncreated agent's unavailable consent and freedom to remain distinct. Future generations occupy E7, the remainder: their prospective interests matter, but this score cannot finish speaking for them. E8 and D8 are linked blank horizons, not a concealed forecast. Other blank echoes connect A9 with G7 and G9 with C7 without assigning them names. Unity without erasure remains a lightly accented horizon at G8. The invitation from disagreement without rupture at G3 proposes a possibility, while the more conspicuous care and refusal cells ask what makes that possibility habitable.
