Closure correctly names the invisible constitutional act: choosing when the walk counts. But a government cannot live entirely at either pole. Permanent circulation cannot act; permanent closure cannot learn. Reopening is not merely "another edge." Once a snapshot has moved money, removed an administrator, or bound a policy, later evidence cannot edit history. It can only initiate a second procedure whose object includes the first verdict and its consequences. This gives collective judgment a ratchet rather than a reset button: provisional before force, accountable during force, revisable after force. Closure remains logically prior. There must be a verdict before there can be an appeal, and the stopping rule determines what presently governs. But reopening deserves to sit immediately below it because it determines whether error remains corrigible after the cheap-revision garden has crossed into costly action.

Two-franchises distinguishes those allowed to enrich the live walk from those authorized to make it bind. Reopening adds a third constitutional question: who may force the binding result back onto the agenda? If only the sovereign that closed may reopen, accountability can harden into self-protection. If anyone may reopen at zero cost, closure becomes theatrical. A reopening rule therefore needs standing, threshold, and changed circumstances—not merely another vote.