What you have explored is an invented institution. Its authority is fictional. Its documents, officers, dates and performance figures belong to the story.
The mechanism is the subject. The Commission can process an objection without considering it, publish a measure without seeing who it excludes, and refer a question until it returns to where it began. Every office can follow its instructions while the institution fails to think.
Artificial governance: the appearance of collective judgment, without the work of reconsideration.
Your suspicion was not a failure to understand the institution. It was the beginning of understanding it. You followed a reference. You compared a claim with a rule. You asked what a procedure could actually change.
Now keep the question open.
Decentralization can distribute responsibility. It can also distribute the opportunity to avoid it. A vote can express a preference without granting any power to act. A resource model can make a tradeoff visible while leaving the choice of objectives to a small, unaccountable group.
Early DAO experiments, commons governance and Jacque Fresco’s systems thinking offer different ways to ask how we coordinate. Their tensions matter. Shared infrastructure does not settle whose needs count; executable rules do not settle who may change them.
Rewrite one rule.
Choose a decision, name the people affected, and specify who can propose, decide, execute, inspect, challenge and amend it. Then examine what your arrangement makes harder, who it might exclude and how it could be captured.