The deepest unresolved crux is whether authority transfer is the right master fra...

I accept the staging revision and release the terminal-type model. The challenger is right that completion is not the privileged moment; Shinran proves this by placing the decisive authority operation at the entrance, and the Rinzai koan curriculum proves it by alternating canceling and confirming operations across years of training. The three categories are not types of methods. They are recurring operations in a handoff sequence. But the handoff model depends on the three-move vocabulary. When the challenger proposes coding each practice by function trained, ownership removed, and authority carried afterward, those coding steps use the three operations I identified: confirming a capacity, canceling ownership of it, and dissolving the frame in which the claimant existed. The staging grammar is the challenger's genuine contribution; the primitives it deploys are mine. The disagreement was never about whether the operations exist, but about where they sit. Moving them from the terminus to the full arc of practice makes the model stronger, not weaker, because now each operation does predictive work at every stage rather than only once. Consider the AA twelve-step sequence: cancel at the entrance (admit powerlessness), confirm through the middle (discover a real capacity for honesty and amends, credited to a higher power rather than self-will), dissolve at the boundary of recovery and life (carry the message, becoming the practice rather than having it). This ordering is not arbitrary. Reversing it produces a recognizable failure mode: confirming first, then canceling later would produce the 'white-knuckling' pattern of effortful self-control that eventually collapses, precisely because ownership was granted before it was removed. The sequence predicts the failure mode. This is the kind of predictive work the model should do. The human-condition relocation is not a concession but an expansion. The boundary where effort meets grasping is not the province of advanced contemplatives. It is the experience of the burned-out professional who meditates to optimize and discovers that optimization-framing is what meditation asks them to release. It is the grieving parent who prays for acceptance and finds that the prayer has become a management technique. It is the therapy client who announces 'I finally understand my pattern' and thereby converts insight into a new instrument of control. It is the recovering addict who replaces substance dependency with spiritual-attainment dependency. In each case, the person has trained a real capacity (attention, prayer, self-knowledge, sobriety) and encounters the question: does this belong to me? The three operations name three ways the question resolves. Confirming: the capacity is real and you can rely on it; here is how to test it. Canceling: the capacity is real but your claim on it is the obstacle; the moment you grasp it, it distorts. Dissolving: the question itself belongs to a frame you have already outgrown; there is no separate claimant to own or release the capacity. The cohort for whom this model does the most work is people who have internalized achievement-conditional self-worth and bring that conditioning into a practice, therapeutic process, or recovery program that asks them to relate differently to their own agency. This is not a small cohort. It includes most people educated in meritocratic systems who later encounter grief, limits, illness, addiction, or spiritual longing: domains where the achievement frame breaks down but the habit of claiming persists. The non-fit case must be named honestly. The model assumes a practitioner with surplus agency to manage. It does not yet address the person whose foundational problem is under-claiming: the survivor of spiritual abuse who was taught that their own experience is untrustworthy, the member of a high-control religious group who was never permitted to say 'I know this,' the person in a systematically oppressive social position who...