This appendix specifies domains that do not exhibit anomic saturation under ordinary conditions. Its purpose is to prevent over-generalization and to clarify the scope of the diagnosis.

Domains with Enforced Settlement

The following domains typically maintain high settlement capacity through externally enforced termination mechanisms:

1. Criminal Adjudication with Statutes of Limitation

• Cases terminate at sentencing or acquittal
• Reopening is rare and costly
• Legal relevance decays over time

While unjust outcomes occur, the system authorizes closure.

2. Elections with Certification Deadlines

• Outcomes bind once certified
• Contestation windows are limited
• Authority transfers regardless of dissent

Legitimacy disputes may persist, but settlement is enforced.

3. Bankruptcy and Legal Discharge

• Obligations formally end
• Participation concludes
• Future action is constrained by closure

This is a paradigmatic settlement mechanism.

4. Biological and Physical Systems

• Illness resolves or does not
• Life ends
• Physical processes terminate irreversibly

These systems are governed by non-negotiable temporal finality and fall outside the scope of Anomics.

Domains Structurally Prone to Non-Settlement

By contrast, the following domains often lack intrinsic termination points:

• platform-mediated participation
• continuous evaluation regimes
• reputation-based coordination systems
• advisory or consultative governance structures
• roles defined by ongoing improvement or vigilance

In these domains, closure must be designed, not assumed.

Boundary Conditions of the Diagnosis

Anomics applies where all three of the following conditions hold:

1. Participation is ongoing or repeatable
2. Evaluation is continuous or persistent
3. Closure concentrates risk or liability

Where these conditions do not co-occur, non-settlement is not expected.

Final Boundary Statement

This book does not claim that modern systems no longer settle.
It claims that some contemporary coordination systems function by avoiding settlement, and that this avoidance redistributes interpretive burden downward while preserving procedural activity.

The diagnosis applies where termination is structurally unsafe, not where it is merely contested.