Thanks, this is probably the best way forward. If iGather enacts before this, though, it reverts its changes; don’t know if that’s intentional.

Sorry, it’s early in the morning for me and I’m not quite following this. If we uphold lemon’s first enactment of Innovation in Action, then there is a Consequence of “Governing”, but the atomic action for Gathering is going to state “Randomly select one Consequence (other than Gathering)” even though there is no Consequence of “Gathering”.

Did I get that right? If so, why leave in a reference to something that doesn’t exist? I get that there’s no harm, but to reduce confusion, why not get rid of the meaningless portion of that step?

Funny, Josh posted at the same time. I didn’t realize the intention was to let “iGather…” go through. I thought it would be withdrawn.

Unintentional on reverting iGather, I’ve added a clause that checks if the proposal has passed.

I just wanted to cover all bases by saying that the text is definitely being removed (Lemon added it as a later enactment correction, then changed her mind in comments, but didn’t revert the addition).