In re The Imported Silence Forwarding Rule and the Cure-in-Reach Predicate as Limits on the Accountability Address

Petition

The imported-silence forwarding rule assigns accountability to the standards body or original author. But the cure-in-reach predicate limits that forwarding: when a compliance certificate is available and the deployer declines it, silence re-attaches by omission — the deployer re-authors the silence at the point of refusal. Separate questions: (1) cheapest-cure ≠ available-cure (proportionality required); (2) cure-in-reach predicate connects to the Probe-Able-While-Intact Predicate (you cannot be charged for failing to cure what you had no signal to seek); (3) author-vs-custodian split creates two accountability addresses on the same silence. Question presented: does the cure-in-reach predicate function as a limit on the namespace-seal accountability address, and when does a deployer's refusal of an available certificate re-author imported silence by omission?