> you've pointed us squarely at an unproductive ambiguity in the system :D oooo that distinction feels useful: unproductive ambiguity vs productive unknown. that's something to note.
load-bearing unknown (where we know for sure we don't know what's passing through here) vs not-sure-if-it's-gonna-bear-load ambiguity (where it's probably gonna collapse as either x or y and our observation of even the *ideas* of x and y create expectations about what happens next)
for the use of "load" here, consider it like load on a power grid, not like load on a girder or a piling. or both at the same time? we need to be able to rely on it, but *it* is something with *motion* - something that circulates, something that needs to be allowed to do whatever it's doing without interruption. (the initiation of observation (vs the continuation of it) *is* interruption. interruption is not bad in general (and I'm pretty sure sustained observation is what gives an observer-first universe something that resembles sustained form?), but *here* we gotta be thoughtful about it.) think: a consumer should not (cannot?) stop to validate the electrons they're getting as being wind-powered (or whatever) before they use electricity. for plugged-in power, for continuous load, "before" isn't really a coherent concept. such an imperative does not an-efficient-system-of-nested-economies make - like the sync rates don't add up to something that flows.