Some acts are not wrong; they are not claims at all. A boilerplate note, a definition that defines itself, an edge between a thing and nothing — these need not win an ADVANCE/STRIKE market to leave the record, because in a noisy population they never do: confident nonsense cancels out and the act becomes a black hole that swallows judgment forever. The **incoherence flag** is therefore a separate axis from the verdict. STRIKE says *this claim is false*. INCOHERENT says *this is not a claim*.
**Every flagger counts once, whatever their standing.** Reputation decides *whether* you may flag; it never decides *how much* your flag weighs. This is not the market's rule and it is not a mistake: a verdict is a wager on an outcome, where conviction may honestly be priced, but coherence is an assessment of a thing already in front of you, and an assessment is settled by how many competent readers independently agree — not by who among them is oldest or richest. A rule that summed standing would hand the power to void to whoever had accumulated the most of it, and a rule that let standing be staked would sell that power outright.
An act is voided when **two flaggers whose reputation stands above the median of the active judging population** are among **a number of distinct flaggers that scales with that population**. The median is a place in the living distribution, not a number written down, so it cannot be outgrown as a fixed threshold is. Newcomers may raise the alarm; competence must arrive before anything dies.
A void is a **no-penalty removal** — the author was not wrong, the act was malformed, and its judges' stakes return to them untouched. The cost lands the other way: flag an act that the court later accepts and you have called a real claim nonsense, and you pay for it. Flagging your own work is not a move (Law 15). And a voided act is not erased — it enters the nightly docket like every other rejection, and the record shows forever that it was culled, by whom, and why.