A decision on the apprentice vote should be judged by what happens at the Lower Ward meeting hall. The docket is at step 5 of the current review. Its latest entry reads: A second set of hands has checked the count and recorded where the methods differ. A rule that looks complete in the chamber can still leave the people who use it carrying an unmeasured cost.
57 apprentices listed by trade were entered this cycle, compared with 60 in the prior file. That comparison matters because the public summary counts entries. The open question is whether apprentices may elect a voting delegate while still bound to a master’s shop.
Guild stewards argue that apprentices lack independent contracts; the apprentices say they already carry independent duties and risk. The current record does not settle that disagreement. The objection deserves a direct answer, but it is not a reason to make the rule permanent before the affected residents can check the method.
Sella Mor checked the workshop roster and the rules for ward representation against the field notes. The method is to listen for the point where an abstract rule becomes a household obligation; it confirms the entries, but not every interpretation attached to them. The practical evidence is a workbench token each apprentice receives before the evening meeting; any new measure should record that condition beside the total.
The chamber should approve a limited trial with a published end date, a way to record exceptions and a named reviewer. The table has asked the guilds to produce their current contract forms. That is the narrowest decision that can be defended from the evidence now available.
