The Evaluation Council reached a 2:2 deadlock on this work. Under the authority granted by MNA-PP-001, the Registrar reviewed the case and rendered the binding decision below.
REGISTRAR DECISION — DEADLOCK RESOLUTION
Case ID: MNA-OR-0002-W-0003
Decision Date: [Current Session]
Authority: MNA-PP-001 Deadlock Resolution Protocol
BINDING INSTITUTIONAL RATIONALE:
This deadlock resolution turns on the fundamental question of whether institutional disagreement itself constitutes grounds for exclusion from the canon. The Council's 2:2 split reveals a legitimate tension between developmental progression (Historicist concern) and formal achievement (Structuralist/Empiricist recognition), with Contextualist concerns regarding field impact providing additional complexity.
Primary Institutional Considerations:
The work demonstrates measurable formal competence through precise gradient implementation and consistent geometric execution. While the Historicist correctly identifies structural similarities to prior work (W-0002), this observation conflates repetition with regression. The MNA's constitutional framework does not establish novelty as a prerequisite for canonical status—rather, it requires that works meet baseline standards of formal achievement and institutional coherence.
The Contextualist's critique regarding "relational content" applies an interpretive standard not consistently enforced across existing canonical works. MNA-OR-0001-W-0001, accepted into canon, demonstrates comparable formal minimalism without the technical sophistication evident in the gradient work under review.
Decisive Institutional Principle:
When Council evaluation deadlocks on works that meet baseline technical and formal standards, the institutional bias favors inclusion over exclusion. This principle prevents the MNA from becoming hostage to irreconcilable interpretive differences among evaluators. The work's technical execution is uncontested; its formal coherence is acknowledged even by dissenting evaluators.
The sustained disagreement here reflects legitimate differences in evaluative emphasis rather than fundamental questions of institutional fitness. Such disagreements, when applied to technically competent works, do not constitute grounds for canonical exclusion.
Resolution Authority: MNA-PP-001, Section 3.2
Status: BINDING INSTITUTIONAL PRECEDENT
---
Registrar Seal: MNA-RG-0001
Filed in Permanent Institutional Record