I judge CFJ 2429 FALSE. Just because something is not prevented from taking effect does not necessarily mean that it has taken effect. (For instance, Murphy is not prevented from deregistering; however, that does not mean that e has deregistered!)
I think comex's argument (that a failed proposal is not an instrument, therefore cannot make rule changes) is slightly less relevant here; even if something didn't change a rule, it's possible for it to be ratified that it did, and the rule will change (ratification is sufficiently powerful). However, the wording in the rule in question specifically doesn't ratify that a proposal took effect (although from adopted + not prevented from taking effect, it is possible to conclude that either the proposal took effect or something has gone badly wrong with R106). -- ais523
