Finality hits.
Committee threshold reached.
Moonlight keeps the view narrow.
Inside scope, everything is clean. Boring, even.
Then the message comes in:
“Send what you saw.”
Not the tx hash.
Not the timestamp.
Not “it’s final.”
They want the reason something they can forward without dragging you back into the thread tomorrow.
You check the close-out: “Cleared within scope.”
Attestation reference.
No rationale. Nothing portable. Nothing you’d defend in another room.
People start typing. Nobody sends.
“Eligibility matched.”
“No anomalies.”
“Within policy.”
Safe fragments. Review-proof.
Because one careless sentence turns a scoped fact into a claim that travels too far.
They ask again, sharper:
“What rule made it okay?”
Cursor blinks.
The rationale box stays empty.
The “why” exists but only inside the Moonlight slice.
One person knows it.
Another controls who can see it.
A third owns disclosure and won’t widen scope just to make a report feel complete.
Silence. Not confusion. Containment.
Someone finally sends the only thing that survives: “Cleared within scope.”
attestation reference.
“Technically yes.”
The caller forwards it to legal.
No context. No why.
Just a thin sentence moving into a room that wasn’t invited.
Reply count goes up. Information doesn’t.
Then the predictable ask: “Can you add us to the viewer set?”
You don’t say yes that’s expensive.
You don’t say no that sounds hostile.
You send the safest answer.
It satisfies no one.
Nothing changes on-chain.
Finality is done.
The clock that moves is the release clock.
Eventually, disclosure drops a sentence small enough to travel: Accurate. Minimal. No new entitlements. No quotes that come back later.
The last question lands: “So we’re just supposed to believe you?”
You don’t rush the reply.
Fast answers travel too far.
The close-out template is still open.
That empty rationale box is still waiting
for words you’re actually allowed to repeat outside the slice.