Conclusion

8.1Contribution

The article has made three contributions. From Kant's first article, its commentary, the remarks on postponement and the two appendices it has drawn three propositions: that the remedy for a hidden reservation is renunciation, not discovery; that publicity is a negative test that a maxim can pass and still be unjust; and that Kant distinguishes a strict prohibition of secret reservation from a declared, bounded postponement. It has placed these propositions in the modern debate between information and commitment, as the notes on Fortna, Walter, Fearon and Schelling give it, and argued that Kant's first article belongs to both sides at once. And it has read two synthetic records as designs for an open reserve, which withhold material and publish the withholding, its reason, its loser and its bound, and which preserve in their own counterpositions the objection that Kant's limit on publicity predicts: a declared reserve can still be a pretext, and its keeper can publish the rules and still be the gate.

8.2Limits

The evidence is two synthetic records written by AI about fictional polities, with no outcomes. The judgments are unanimous in both, and were produced from the same input and model. One record does not concern war or peace at all. The ledger was not built for this question. The article therefore says nothing about whether open records make real peace agreements last, and nothing about which option either fictional committee should take. Its claims concern what the records are designed to say and how that design compares with Kant's.

8.3Further research

Three lines of work would test the design argument. The first would read the other forty-eight records for reserves of the same kind, stated and unstated. The second would set the open reserve beside the agreements studied by Fortna and Walter, to see whether any real agreement published its own reserve in this form; that needs sources this article did not use. The third would follow a Meridian record past its deadline, if the platform's later revisions of a judgment allow it, to see whether a reserve that was required to be argued again was in fact argued again. Only that line could begin to say whether the bound holds in practice, and then only for a synthetic setting.

Appendix: ledger figures used

The figures below are taken from the parent study's numbers.md and, for the two cases, from its ledger.json, in the ledger's own terms. The coders are two models of different families.

Collection-wide (numbers.md):

The two cases (ledger.json, coded cells and record cells):