The right of ontological objection extends standing beyond you belong here to include the protected license to say this no longer corresponds. A participant should be able to say this role no longer fits what I can carry, or this institution is no longer doing what it claims, or this rule once made sense and now produces the opposite effect, or this project is succeeding technically while becoming wrong in some deeper way — without the system automatically filing the objection as disloyalty, laziness, pathology, or obstruction.
Objection has standing, not correctness
It does not mean every objection is right. It means objection itself has legitimate standing, so an ecology can distinguish dissent from dysfunction instead of assuming they are the same. Its strongest form is that no standing may depend on ontological conformity: a mature ecology must tolerate participants who say the model itself is wrong, because standing is prior even to agreement with the framework that protects standing — the moment belonging requires belief, the framework has drifted into ideology. See Designing for Drift.