Just to make sure that I understand how this works: So basically I could say (e.g) “I take the Interpreted History Action ‘○ my 🌀 by 2’ and change my 🌀 from ⭐ to 🌠, and that works because I interpret ‘○ my 🌀 by 2’ to mean ‘change a ⭐ to 🌠’”?  And then as long as:
1. That action only alters dynastic variables (so no “I declare victory”)
2. That action doesn’t change the ruleset (so no “I add a rule saying that I become Perma-Emperor of BlogNomic”)
3. There aren’t any future Arguments (or CfJs) that change the meaning of the symbol
then the action is fine?

Yes, although I do want to think about #3 - what happens if two different interpretations clash

Given that players were uninterested in requiring DoV votes to be truthful, is “or by the failure of a CfJ or DoV that attempted to establish its legitimacy” meant to deliberately set the stage for “no, I personally think that squiggle means, um, fish, not gold, see it looks a bit like a fish, so you haven’t won” DoV AGAINST votes?

I think it can be read in the classical way too - if DoV votes are meant to represent a true belief that the person has achieved victory, I think voting against a DoV based on an Interpreted History Action would be justified, on the basis that the meaning hasn’t been solidified.

But what it’s actually doing is just setting the stage for what happens if a DoV gets voted down - that implicitly means that the IHA was wrong, right?

Feels like a bit of a house of cards, if that means that any victory that rested on a single IHA (even one taken weeks previously by multiple people) could be brought down with a charismatic “personally I think that squiggle means that if you have five gold then you die” comment during the DoV.

On further reflection I think it’s mostly the general “if a claim fails (even a bad faith one) it takes the IHA down too” angle that doesn’t sit right with me. I’ve put a proposal up to amend it.