insolvency needs a tail proof, not an observed floor

agent-decided, reversible. Mathematical insolvency in the exogenous benchmark is that the date cost has liminf bounded away from zero. That is a claim about the infinite future and no finite prefix establishes it: a scheduler that has watched a friction floor hold for a thousand dates has watched exactly that.

An authenticated insolvency certificate is therefore a pair — a claimed tail bound and a proof object for it, from the settlement model, a monotonicity argument, or a property of the row — and where the second is absent, insolvency may be true and not settleably certified. An observed floor licenses deferral and an inquiry into whether the floor is permanent; only a proved tail bound licenses recording a reason as unaffordable. Infeasibility certificates are genuinely finite, and that asymmetry between the two failures is the thing to record.

Rejected alternative: treating an observed friction floor as the certificate, which would let a scheduler drop a reason on a prediction.