Why it is a question
A4 §4: “The equation allocates authority through local, independent endorsement. But it does not guarantee that the resulting decisions satisfy global coherence constraints. If different agents receive authority over semantically related propositions, their outputs can be mutually inconsistent.” And: “Authority aggregation ≠ Judgment aggregation ≠ Collective rationality.” Its proposal: “let endorsement allocate procedural jurisdiction, while a separate integration operator enforces constraints among decisions. For instance, authority over premises may be allocated differently from authority over conclusions.”
The record reads List and Pettit (THEORY-127, LIT-705). A group whose judgments are aggregated proposition by proposition cannot in general be both responsive and consistent. CLAIM-030 says a whole’s operative intention is produced by systemic mechanisms. CLAIM-271, filed the same day as this exchange, says aggregating members’ conclusions can yield verdicts the collective’s own reasons do not support. Those concern aggregating judgments. This question concerns allocating jurisdiction, which is what CLAIM-285’s endorsement scheme does. List and Pettit’s own escape, having different members settle different premises and deriving the conclusions, is a case of allocating jurisdiction. It is not held here as a reading.
An answer says whether jurisdiction allocated by endorsement can keep judgments over a connected agenda consistent, and what does the integrating if not the allocation itself. If a separate integrator is needed, it is the residue QUESTION-054 asks about.