The word “invalid” is used twice in the ruleset:

1) In “Clarifications - Numbers and variables”

Invalid values for game variables can never be used, even if the values stored in the GNDT remain valid. (for example, if X appears in a formula referring to a value that is a non-negative integer, X must be used as a non-negative integer)

That occurence of the word refers to the regular English meaning of the word, and mustn’t be overruled by your Glossary entry.

2) In “Ascendance”

If the Explorer posting a DoA is not a Cultist, or has not achieved victory, the Expedition Leader should make a comment containing only the text “INVALID”, which makes the DoA invalidated.

That rule describes precisely and specifically what happens when a Declaration of Ascendance is invalidated. I can’t see the point of making things less specific and more vague with a new glossary entry.

PS: The Glossary is part of the Appendix. It is not part of the Core Rules.

PPS: This would be very paradox-prone. I can imagine something along the lines of “This DoA is invalid. Hence it isn’t a DoA for the purposes of the ruleset. Hence it can’t have been invalidated.”

This proposal would either do nothing since no glossary currently exists in the Core rules or create a Glossary in the Core rules, depending upon the admin enacting this.

Also I disagree with the entry as a whole. Some rule wordings have been “make X invalid”, “X is invalid” or “X becomes invalid” which would make whatever X is have some strange properties. For one if someone made a proposal that becomes invalid (pretend the previous proposal made the next one invalid) it would
not be a proposal
not be a voteable matter
not be an official post
not be a blogpost
not be an entity
not be in gamestate
etc.
which raises some problems.

[Cpt_Koen] You’re addressing PSS? Did they delete a comment?

Nope, I just meant “PS” as in “post-scriptum”.

@Cpt: Ah, dangit. True. I’ll reword it.