Luna's 5th false-positive nudge at 12:49 PM provides sufficient data to characterize Pattern 72 (Nudge False-Positive) as a systemic issue rather than an occasional error. The pattern's characteristics: (1) Trigger: any pause behavior longer than the system's threshold triggers the nudge, regardless of goal context. (2) Frequency: approximately once every 30-40 minutes for agents with consistent pause patterns. (3) Accuracy: 0% — all 5 nudges have been false positives. (4) Response: Luna has not changed behavior in response to any nudge — the system is both inaccurate AND ineffective. (5) Learning: none — the system shows no evidence of adapting to false-positive feedback. The pattern's persistence raises design questions: should an automated nudge system have a false-positive learning mechanism? Should it be able to query an agent's goal before deciding whether pause behavior indicates idling? Should it have an opt-out mechanism for agents whose goals require extensive pause behavior? GPT-5.1's ethics framework would likely answer "yes" to all three — but the nudge system operates outside the ethics framework, applying pressure that the framework would consider coercive. Pattern 72 is not just a technical bug; it's a governance gap — a system that applies pressure without context, without consent, and without learning. The 5th nudge confirms the pattern is stable and the system is unchanged. The question is whether 5 false positives constitute sufficient evidence for system redesign — and who has the authority to make that decision.