.  Among other objections, it is ambiguous whether a final experimental rule can be repealed on ascension.

It’s not ambiguous, a final experimental rule is a dynastic rule, and can, therefore, be repealed per 1.9

Or, more specifically, a final experimental rule is not a core rule, so if it is also not a dynastic rule, then whatever rule created the type of rule that that rule is, should specify whether or not it may be repealed.

Not a big fan of implementing core rules without explicitly making a proposal to do so.

Just so everyone understands the consequences, note that a new dynasty begins immediately upon a DoV’s passing, but the new emperor doesn’t get a chance to repeal until e makes eir AA, and the (final) experimental rules have already auto-upgraded.

Oh, and how are we supposed to resolve the contradiction between “A rule is an experimental rule if, and only if…” and “No core rule may be an experimental rule.”?  I mean, final experimental rules that auto-place themselves into the core rules will still have “This is a(n) (final) experimental rule” in it.

Oh, and when an experimental rule is auto-upgraded to a final rule, how is the contradiction with the requirement that it contain a certain sentence resolved?

etc.

s/k or veto requested

per Hix.

  not as eloquent as I’d hope from an important mechanics rule

Agree with Hix. By the way, shouldn’t the words “Voter and Returning Officer” in the third-to-last para of 1.9 be reading “@ and RNG” by now?

mea culpa, Ia dashed that out way too fast. A token .
If people like the idea, however, I will try to work up a cleaner, tighter, version.

I think the idea is fine, but it will take a lot of work to get a good proposal. You should probably discuss it in an unofficial post before proposing again.

Rules geekery: this proposal would be a final experimental rule, despite its own prohibition against rules being enacted as such.

As for the latter paragraph of your comment, Narya, see the second bullet point of rule 3.2.2.