Item 65: Whether `L_min(V)` is needed in its strong form

The slice never required an LI sentence whose meaning is a reason: reasons are consumed by identifier comparison and the compiler never sees V. So the relationship it used is weaker than L in Ext(L_min(V)) — L must code the value layer's query vocabulary and the settlement layer's readings, and V is otherwise opaque.

Whether the stronger relationship is needed is untested, because nothing in the toy asked the market to price a claim about a reason. A case that does — a value query whose answer depends on what the record has recognised as a reason — would settle it.

Deliverable shape: either such a case, with what it forces L_min(V) to contain, or an argument that the weak relationship is closed under the architecture's operations. Acceptance check: the slice's compiler runs on the case unchanged, or the round states exactly which of its functions must newly read V. Context: projects/normativity/legitimacy/rounds/2026-08-25-end-to-end-vertical-slice/FINDINGS.md §3. Consumed by: the round taking these waists to real normative practice, which is where open-textured reasons first arrive.