CFJ: Whether or not a Proposal CAN make a Secured change is determined by the power and precedence of R1688, as deferred to by R106.
Arguments: If R1688 were written as a definition: "Secured-N is defined as meaning the secured thing CANNOT be changed by an instrument of power<N", then when a Rule A contains "X is Secured-N", that Security would have the precedence of Rule A when resolving rules conflicts, as the CANNOT would be contained, via definition, in Rule A. However, if R1688 was a direct prohibition "If a Rule states that something is Secured-N, then that thing CANNOT be changed by an instrument of power<N", then the CANNOT is a direct prohibition in R1688 that is invoked by Rule A, and the functioning of Security would have the precedence of R1688. The current language, though, is confusing to me. It reads: "A Rule that makes a change, action, or value secured (hereafter the securing Rule) thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that change or action..." This says that it's the Rule (Rule A) that "makes" it impossible. This could be read as "the text contained in Rule A makes it IMPOSSIBLE as per R1688" (putting the IMPOSSIBLE in R1688). It could also be read as "Rule A is the one 'making' it impossible, therefore what matters is the power of Rule A". This is important for the relationship between Proposals and Security as per R106. R106 reads in part: "Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies." Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power (R1030). If it's R1688 that applies the CANNOT for security, then R106 defers to R1688, and R1688 prevents secured changes from being made by proposals of too-low power. So a TRUE judgement would imply "things are working as intended." However, if the CANNOT is assumed to be in Rule A, then the deference doesn't work, and R106 overrules Rule A whenever Rule A is of a power<3, which means proposals CAN make changes even if their power is "too low" for the level of security. I think it would be pretty important to make sure that the actual CANNOT prohibition is considered to be "part of" Rule 1688 for the purposes of precedence, so I hope this is TRUE. But if not, a legislative fix is needed.
