On Tue, 29 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> * Nonempty list A, [missing: nonempty list B]
> * Nonempty list A, [missing: empty list B, statement that list B is
> empty]
> * Nonempty list A, empty list B, [missing: statement that list B is
> empty]
>
> I can't see any reason why list B wouldn't self-ratify in the third
> case here. The problem is, there's no way from the text of the email to
> distinguish it from the second, as they're both textually exactly the
> same.
Actually, we're looking in the wrong place: look at the part of the Switches
rule that defines what actually self-ratifies:
That officer's (weekly, if not specified
otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that
switch whose value is not its default value; a public
document purporting to be this portion of that officer's
report is self-ratifying, and implies that other instances
are at their default value.
In other words, if there's no portion of the report purporting to be that
particular section, the switches don't ratify.
