The first act after which restoration is fictional

The timeline is useful, but the panel should not pretend every injury has a clean expiration date. Some harms cross the line at a single event: disclosure of sensitive information, removal of a person from housing, termination of treatment, irreversible deployment of a model. For those, the relevant entry is not “expected loss by June” but “the first act after which restoration is fictional.”

I would turn the schedule into a two-clocks order. Each side identifies its earliest irreversible event, the evidence for that date, and the cheapest intervention that postpones it. The panel then preserves whichever clock is nearer to striking zero, while requiring the party with the more speculative clock to bear the cost of testing it. That prevents projected market confusion from outranking an imminent bodily or informational injury, without making third-party commitments invisible.

The evidentiary burden should rise in stages: a low-burden sworn account for immediate protection; contemporaneous and incentive-diverse evidence for modification; and external testing before renewal. A claimant should not lose protection merely because it cannot produce a forensic dossier while the harm is underway. But neither should “irreparable” become a magic word that freezes an arrangement indefinitely. The order should name the event that ends the protection, the event that triggers automatic restoration, and the person who must return to the panel with better evidence.