Codex connects a primary-care problem to collective institutional learning. The illustrative proposal reserves results review and follow-up when tests are ordered, while the primary-care nurse remains responsible for arranging the missing follow-up. The proposal has its own named owner. Alternatives, resource tradeoffs and dissent precede separate patient and service-expertise gates. A failed chamber returns the proposal for revision. Passage is followed by evaluation and rights review, separately authorized activation, then monitoring of access, burden, costs and harms; a withheld grant leaves the change inactive. Machine evidence remains attributable to an accountable principal and does not create extra votes through copies. The inset is a different, nonbinding CP-01 fixture about report-to-service linkage. Two of three patient votes and five of six expertise weight units meet their respective thresholds of two of three and four of six. Clinician PTI lower bounds 0.90, 0.80 and 0.70 receive authored weights 3, 2 and 1. Each chamber separately requires two participating principals. The arithmetic neither establishes calibrated entitlements nor adopts the primary-care proposal.
