Distributed adjudication is how the framework keeps judgment from becoming sovereignty. Many decisions in a real ecology require discretion — how impaired someone is, how much a burden should fall to them, what restriction a danger justifies — and the instinct is to hand each hard case to one competent authority. That instinct is the danger: it quietly lets a single doctor, agency, court, family, or algorithm decide the whole person. The rule runs the other way:
No single actor may decide a participant’s total standing, burden, capacity, or future. Each decision is bounded to its domain, made by the least concentrated competent authority, and remains reviewable.
The load-bearing distinction is that institutions acquire jurisdiction over problems, not ownership over participants. A clinical question goes to clinicians, a tenancy question to a housing body, a danger to the safety system, a capacity question to a review forum — and the participant keeps personal jurisdiction everywhere no bounded counter-claim applies. It is the participant-facing form of minimum necessary jurisdiction and multi-standing governance: no one gets the whole person, and every expansion of authority must justify its domain, its depth, its duration, and its evidence. See no one decides the whole person.