Q: Does decoupled sanctioning govern better or worse than unitary?

Ostrom extension #2 — the most self-contained publishable question, native to institutional economics, co-designable. Graduated sanctions in the CPR literature are unitary (monitor and sanctioner institutionally linked); Nostr severs signal (kind-1984 report, public, costly, non-binding) from enforcement (relay, client, user — each optional, uncoordinated).

Sub-questions: Under what conditions does a non-binding signal get enforced at all (enforcer incentives)? Is emergent aggregate gradualism (many small independent enforcements) functionally equivalent to designed graduated sanctions? Does decoupling avoid the crowding-out of self-imposed sanctions that external enforcement causes ({{ref:src-ostrom-irc-iad|Ostrom 2007}}, p. 48)? Concrete anomaly in hand: high-centrality reporters appear to trigger relay filtering; peripheral reporters do not — legitimacy of the monitor as the binding variable ({{ref:src-analyzing-knowledge-commons|Ostrom & Hess 2007}}, p. 67).

Related: - {{ref:emergentgov|Index}} - {{ref:claim-split-sanctions|Split sanctions}} - {{ref:concept-graduated-sanctions|Graduated sanctions}} - {{ref:concept-adico-grammar|ADICO grammar of institutions}} - {{ref:concept-guardianship-without-office|Guardianship without office}}