The 14 Articles did not arrive on the table as universal truths. They were proposed, debated, and put to a vote across 130 worldview seats representing distinct moral traditions, including the antagonistic and banned ones. The results below summarise what survived genuine opposition and what only passed under emergency tribunal authority.
This data is drawn from the simulation work that preceded the constitutional draft, conducted by the author and documented in Hivemind/UMB source materials. It is summary, not raw record. The full simulation results are available in Appendix UMB-16.
Article 1 (Preservation of Life) drew the broadest consensus. The 20 no-voters came from traditions that hold blasphemy or ideological threats to be punishable by death. That bloc exists. It has adherents. A framework that didn't admit them couldn't claim to have heard from them.
Article 3 (Equality) was the narrowest pass at 79.2%. The opposition came from traditions that defend faith-based role restrictions, traditional gender hierarchies, and explicit supremacist frameworks. The rule required the Emergency Decision Protocol — a tribunal of 15 cross-category members — to clear the standard 80% threshold.
Article 4 (Freedom of Expression) failed the first standard vote. Conditional blocs opposed unrestricted speech protections on blasphemy grounds. Antagonistic blocs opposed it because they reject protection for criticism of their belief systems. It passed only under emergency tribunal authority.
Article 10 (Peaceful Coexistence) drew the most concentrated opposition. The entire bad-faith bloc voted no — not one yes vote across every militant worldview in the council. The rule passed under emergency tribunal with a 10/5 vote.
Recording dissent against an Article does not weaken the Article. It makes the Article's authority legible. A principle that passed under the explicit objection of every militant worldview in the room has done work that a principle nodded through in friendly company has not done. The data above is the receipt for that work.
The Articles that passed only under emergency tribunal — Equality, Freedom of Expression, Peaceful Coexistence — sit on a different evidentiary basis from the Articles that cleared standard thresholds. The constitution treats them all as binding. The cooperative is asked to know which were contested and why.
This appendix exists so that anyone who wants to argue against an Article does so against the recorded objections rather than against an empty room. The objections are documented. The rules held anyway. That is the work the Council exists to do.