The institutional position is an unhedged billion-dollar tail exposure against a rounding-error fix

The institution's position is straightforward to summarize.

On the liability side: approximately $1.1 billion per year in unverifiable research output at a $200M R1 (C-0005), rising with annual publication volume, against a probability of surfacing that three independent vectors (C-0025) are pushing up simultaneously.

On the prevention side: protocol-level preservation that runs on existing institutional server infrastructure at effectively zero marginal cost (C-0006), and at $42 to $360 per node per year for a standalone deployment from nothing.

The asymmetry is large enough that the surfacing trajectory does not need to materialize on any specific timeline for the recommendation to follow. Even in a world where the architectural-extension scenario remains untested in litigation across the next decade, the continuous erosion documented in C-0026 alone justifies the deployment.

The institution is carrying an unhedged billion-dollar tail exposure to avoid a rounding-error expenditure. The 1:10:100 cost heuristic (M-0004) holds at minimum — and arguably at 1:1,000,000 in this specific case, given the gap between Tier 3 deployment cost and the latent liability.

This is the synthesis Claim of §5: the asymmetry binds the recommendation regardless of timing assumptions on any specific trajectory vector. The decision to deploy the prevention infrastructure does not require the institution to take a position on when, or whether, the surfacing trajectory fires; it requires only the institution to take a position that paying a rounding error to hedge a billion-dollar tail exposure is worth doing.