The committee threshold hit. Finality landed. Dusk's Moonlight kept the view tight. Inside scope, everything is boring. Clean.
Then the message comes in from the other side of the fence.
“Send what you saw.”
Not a request for the tx hash. They already have the timestamp. Not a request for “it’s final.” They can read that too. They want the part that stops the follow-ups. The reason it was allowed to clear, in a form they can circulate without pulling you back into the thread tomorrow.
You look at the ticket.
A single close-out line. An attestation reference on Dusk. "Cleared within scope". Nothing you’d call a rationale. Nothing you’d want to defend in another room.
It doesn’t answer the question they’re actually asking.
Three people start typing at once. Nobody hits send.
“Eligibility matched.”
“No anomalies.”
“Within policy.”
Short, safe, review-survivable fragments. Nobody wants to be the person who turns a credential-scoped fact into a portable claim with one careless sentence.
The caller doesn’t want fragments. They want something they can defend.
They ask again, slightly sharper: “What rule made it okay?”
A cursor blinks in the close-out template. The “classification / rationale” box stays empty.
One person has the “why” inside the Dusk's transaction settlement Moonlight slice, tied to what was admissible in-window. Another can approve who else gets to see it. A third is the disclosure owner who has to sign any scope note that widens circulation, and they’re not signing one just to make a write-up feel complete for a case that already cleared.
The thread goes quiet in a specific way. Not confused. Boxed in.
Someone tries anyway. Types two lines. Deletes one. Leaves the only thing that survives: “cleared within scope,” plus the attestation reference.
Then: “Technically yes.”
No one asks for the rest because asking for the rest is asking for a signature.
The caller forwards your line to legal.
Not the Moonlight view. Not the missing “why.” Just your thin sentence and the attestation reference, now sitting in a room that wasn’t on the original list. You can see the reply count climb without any new information appearing.
A question lands two messages later, predictable and still annoying:
“Can you add us to the viewer set?”
You don’t even type a full answer. You can’t make “yes” cheap here. “No” doesn’t sound cooperative either. So you send the safest thing and watch it fail to satisfy anyone.
Minutes pass. Nothing changes on-chain. Finality doesn’t move.
A release clock does.
The disclosure owner finally drops a sentence that can survive review-safe circulation. It’s accurate and small on purpose. No extra names. No new entitlements on Dusk the privacy layer-1. No reason you could quote later without dragging disclosure along with it.
The caller comes back with the only question left:
“So we’re just supposed to believe you?”
You don’t answer quickly. The only fast answers are the ones that travel too far.
The close-out template is still open.
That empty “classification / rationale” field is still there, waiting for words you’re allowed to paste outside the slice.