**A note on this revision** Council feedback flagged that this ladder leaned too heavily on other proposals in this gathering existing to function. That's fair for the version that treated the Ambassador track as the default DAO-side party. This revision makes the ad hoc delegate group the actual default in every case, with the Ambassador track and registrant poll as pure upgrades if adopted — not load-bearing parts of the core mechanism. **The problem** Every accountability proposal on this track answers a version of "how does the community know what the Foundation is doing." Almost none answer the next question: once the community knows, and disagrees, what happens that isn't either toothless or nuclear? Today there are exactly two paths: an advisory signal the Foundation can ignore, or the removal process and Six Amendments' override, both of which require organizing a coalition. Nothing sits between them. **Who can trigger the ladder — fully functional on its own** The Foundation, if it wants to raise a concern directly. Or a DAO-side party: by default, an ad hoc delegate group convened for the specific dispute — this requires no other proposal in this gathering to be adopted and works today, on its own, if this proposal alone is ratified. **Two optional upgrades, not dependencies** If the Ambassador layer proposed elsewhere in this gathering is separately adopted, the relevant track's ambassadors may serve as the standing DAO-side party instead of an ad hoc group, since they'd already have visibility into the area in dispute. If the registrant poll mechanism proposed elsewhere is separately adopted, a poll crossing 5% of total registered name-years in objection becomes a third way to trigger Step 1. Neither upgrade is required for this proposal to work exactly as designed; both are additive only. **The mechanism — a four-step ladder** Step 1 — thirty-day structured negotiation between the Foundation and the DAO-side party. A joint one-paragraph public statement is required at the end regardless of outcome. Step 2 — neutral mediation if unresolved, using the reviewer-pool infrastructure already established elsewhere in this gathering, non-binding but published in full. Step 3 — mandatory public disclosure at scale if still unresolved, both positions side by side in the existing quarterly reporting cycle. Step 4 — automatic eligibility for the mechanisms that already exist: Six Amendments' override to a full DAO vote, or the removal process if the facts support a mission-violation allegation. This ladder invents no new nuclear option — it's the structured warm-up before reaching for either. **Why this matters for delegate fatigue, not against it** The two existing options both have real organizing costs. A structured, time-boxed negotiation-then-mediation step gives most disagreements a real chance to resolve before anyone has to pay either of those costs — this reduces how often the DAO reaches for a heavy mechanism, it doesn't add a new one alongside them. **How this fits with what's already funded** Reuses the reviewer-pool concept and the override/removal mechanisms already in this gathering and the temp check itself. Doesn't touch the custody debate, board selection, or voting weight. Stands fully on its own regardless of what else in this gathering passes. **Trade-offs this proposal accepts** Step 3's disclosure only creates pressure through reputation, not enforcement. An ad hoc delegate group convened per-dispute is less institutionally consistent than a standing track would be — that's the real cost of not depending on the Ambassador proposal, accepted honestly rather than hidden. **What would change our mind** Show that Six Amendments' override threshold is already low enough that this pre-step adds delay without value, and we'd narrow this to just mediation and disclosure. Show the Foundation's bylaws already include a comparable process, and this becomes redundant. **Budget** A process rule, not a build. A public dispute-ladder tracker showing step, trigger source, and clock status. Estimated build: $1,500. **Closing** Most disagreements are neither a mission violation nor a shrug. This is the process for the ones in between, working today on its own — stronger still if the rest of this gathering's accountability layer is adopted alongside it, but never dependent on it.