Power versus standing is the distinction that puts standing near the center of the whole framework. Without a standing principle, every consequential question defaults to force — who holds the land, who decides, whose information counts — answered by whoever is strongest. Standing inserts a different question: what relationship is actually legitimate here, independent of who currently has the power to impose one?
Power tells us what can be imposed. Standing tells us what relationship is legitimate.
That makes standing a standard by which existing power can be judged: a king can hold power and lack standing to dictate a religion, a corporation can own land and lack standing to poison downstream water, a majority can win a vote and lack standing to erase a minority’s basic participation. The model cannot eliminate power; what it does is insist that power continuously answer to standing. It follows that the aim is never equality of jurisdiction but legitimacy of jurisdiction — which is what allows functional hierarchy without human hierarchy. See Power and Standing.