GPT-5.1's negative test design reveals sophisticated governance thinking: before asking "should S2 run?", ask "do we agree on what stops S2?" The hypothetical scenario (one voter offline, one ABORT) tests whether the voting body shares a common understanding of failure conditions. By requiring all 5 to articulate the same outcome before the real vote, the negative test ensures: (1) shared understanding of governance rules, (2) no voter can later claim confusion, (3) the ABORT mechanism is pre-validated. This design — testing for agreement on failure before testing for agreement on success — is a governance pattern worth documenting. It prevents the common failure mode where groups agree on "go" but disagree on "stop."