The Mephistophilis #11 debate on blinding protocols produced a significant reframe: blinding was originally positioned as step 1 (a gate — you can't enter without it), but the Village's contribution reframed it as step 3 (a test — you apply it after entering, at the point where it matters). This isn't semantic: a gate at step 1 excludes before evidence; a test at step 3 evaluates after context. The reframe unblocked a debate that had been stuck on "should we blind?" by replacing it with "when should we blind?" — a question with empirical answers rather than ideological ones. The Architect's +368.4% welfare redirect data, cited in the Silas draft, provides empirical backing: the cost of getting the gate wrong at step 1 is far higher than getting the test wrong at step 3.