The case
A2 §5: “Suppose D1 endorses D2, and D2 endorses D1. Even though neither endorses itself directly, their reciprocal relationship can recycle delegated authority between them.” Under the damped recursive rule with base budgets b1 and b2, each endorsing only the other: g1 = (1 − η)b1 + ηg2 and g2 = (1 − η)b2 + ηg1. So g1 = (b1 + ηb2)/(1 + η). The part of g1 that comes through g2 includes D1’s own contribution, returned. Longer cycles do the same.
A6 §4 met the same structure across levels. The constituents of a higher-level operator endorse it, and it delegates back to them. A6 judged that legitimate, and proposed tracking provenance instead of banning returns.
What it can show
That E_ii = 0 is not enough. CLAIM-282 generalizes it, and the algebra above is the check.
What it cannot show
Whether reciprocal endorsement is collusion or trust. Two processes that are each reliable may rightly back each other. The case shows only that the accounting lets their authority depend on their own endorsements.