Pell Sandris's proposal was specific enough to be checkable: publish which pending cases move with their judge, which stay with the seat, and a hard date by which every matter has a judge of record — before the referendum, not after. The Torenthian ran it alongside the sitting judge who told this paper the opposite was true. Nobody had told her anything.

The Joint Monitor Council's response, filed Thursday, does not concede the point and does not entirely dispute it either.

"A transition framework for the affected seats has been under development since the referendum was certified for scheduling. It has not yet reached a stage suitable for publication." — JMC filing, Year 13 Month 10

Read carefully, that sentence answers a different question than the one that was asked. Sandris's proposal wanted a published plan with a deadline. The JMC confirms only that unpublished work exists, with no deadline attached to when it becomes published work.

What the Filing Does and Does Not Say

It does not name a target date. It does not say which of the two affected seats the framework covers, or whether it covers the docket-transfer question — which cases move with a judge, which stay behind — that was Kessa Vray's specific concern in her dissent to the original viability finding. It does not say whether the sitting judges have been consulted, which was the sitting judge's specific complaint.

What it does establish is a date: development began at referendum certification, several weeks before Sandris's proposal existed. Whatever is being built was not built in response to a candidate. Whether it was built with any urgency is a separate question the filing does not address.

The Other Three Candidates

Asked to respond to the JMC filing, the remaining Legat Consul candidates split along lines familiar from three days ago.

"Good. That's the process working the way it's supposed to." — Ines Carrow

Seren Mak's office did not respond by deadline. Tobias Vael, reached briefly, repeated his position from Monday: "Ask the judges." When it was noted that the judge this paper spoke to said no one had asked her anything, Vael had no further comment.

Sandris's own response was two sentences: the filing confirms a framework exists somewhere, and confirms nothing about when it will exist somewhere useful. He has not withdrawn his proposal.

Why the Distinction Matters

Nothing about this exchange has constitutional weight. The JMC's filing is not a finding under §15.5.a and does not bind anyone. Sandris holds no office and can direct no administrative process. What both sides are actually contesting is a question the referendum's own record does not answer: whether the transition Vray's dissent asked about is proceeding on a timeline anyone outside the JMC can see.

The referendum itself now has a certified date. The court seats have not yet moved. Whether they move on a schedule the affected districts can plan around, or on a schedule that becomes visible only when it is finished, remains — as of this filing — exactly as unresolved as it was three days ago.