Korda's Convention finally has a proposed resolution to argue over. The document is called the Northern Lake Settlement. It does something the Joint Committee on Transition Facts deliberately would not do: it identifies which portion of Korda might leave.
Only three northern districts of the previously certified lake corridor—recorded in the proposal as LC-N1, LC-N2 and LC-N3, including the Varenne Station area—would be placed on a path toward merger with Kelvant. The southern lake districts would remain with interior Korda. Their retained frontage is the geographical promise on which the proposal depends.
Jalen Mire and Tomas Rell put their names to the draft as delegates. Its identification of three districts is a political choice made after considering the committee's evidence; it is not a determination by the committee that freight patterns themselves should decide sovereignty. The exact district map still needs authentication by the Elections Panel before any eventual affected-voter ballot.
Why three districts are not a settlement by themselves
For Mire, the hardest objection came from people who helped certify the full corridor petition. They did not collect signatures for a partial ballot, and they had prepared for a referendum that the Constitution later displaced. One corridor delegate asked whether the Convention's job was now to choose a smaller claim than the voters had made.
Mire answered that the Convention was created precisely because the existing competing claims could not simply proceed separately. His test for the new proposal was whether affected citizens would retain a real choice and whether a significant northern share of the original corridor claim could receive effect. He did not pretend that every supporter of the first petition would be satisfied.
Rell faced the inverse question. His constituents were not eligible to vote in the canceled corridor referendum yet could lose freight access, service support and tax capacity because of its result. The draft protects southern Korda's lake access and requires a future service schedule. Rell conceded that words about continuity are not themselves a functioning emergency route or an enforceable contract. Those must be settled lawfully before any transfer takes effect.
Orin reads the fine print
Dessa Orin had asked for a retained shore, service continuity and an honest Statehood route. The draft addresses each, though not to her full satisfaction. The Statehood clause neither declares Korda a State nor treats old audit material as a substitute for evaluating the Territory on its eventual boundaries. Existing constitutional deadlines are not suspended to make the proposal easier to sell.
Orin said the distinction between preserving a process and promising its outcome mattered to her. A settlement could keep the possibility of Statehood alive without pretending the Monitors had already certified the capacities of a redrawn Territory. That was defensible. It was also the kind of defense she expected to make to people who had signed for the whole Korda they knew.
She withheld her position on the proposed resolution pending its final language. That left the chamber with three visible political voices and no claim that the votes had already been won.
A choice that will outlast the Convention
The proposal explicitly retains Kelvant's approval rights, the LM–JM integrity assessment and the Senate's ratification role. Voters affected by the Convention resolution must also ratify it. The old corridor referendum does not resume just because the new proposal partly resembles its subject. Any later referendum must be the referendum authorized for the Convention's own resolution.
There are still title entries without full documentation and shared costs without an agreed division. The text requires a lawful implementation process instead of a fabricated final sum. That is a more candid document than a polished cost table made from missing records, though opponents understandably want to know how much uncertainty voters will be asked to accept.
For the first time the delegates can put a proposed geographical answer next to each difficult question. They can vote it down, amend it, or send it forward. None of those acts, alone, gives Kelvant new territory. It would take the citizens and other constitutional institutions to do that.