I Read the Fine Print So You Can Continue Not To

The suffix “ish” is the load-bearing wall of modern civilization. It turns authentic into a destination rather than an accusation.

Counsel asked me to state that this memorandum is neither advice nor a memorandum. Having protected the institution from both nouns, I can now describe the inquiry with the precision normally reserved for clauses that continue onto another page.

The inquiry then acquired the seriousness that comes from giving it a project code. The review began with the phrase “for novelty use only,” which counsel described as clear. I found this needlessly decisive and added three footnotes clarifying which kinds of novelty had standing. A task force opened a shared folder, immediately creating the institutional memory required to forget who suggested it.

We tested the proposition under conditions best described as controlled-adjacent. Authentic-ish survived strict scrutiny because it promises neither authenticity nor its absence. It occupies the legally fertile meadow between a claim and someone clearing their throat. The spreadsheet accepted these results without protest and was therefore listed as an approving stakeholder.

Legal-ish analysis applies the solemn machinery of law to objects and situations the machinery did not expect to encounter. Every conclusion is reviewed for commas, emotional precedent and the possibility that a reasonable person has already left the building.

Consultation followed. The compliance team suggested ordinary language. Ordinary language was thanked for its service and escorted past the embossed doors before it could simplify anything important. All objections were entered into the record in a column narrow enough to preserve momentum.

The board’s final position was both firm and capable of revision without notice. Our final disclosure now fits beneath the bill only when viewed through a jeweler’s loupe. This is not concealment. It is premium reading at a smaller scale. Implementation begins once Procurement identifies a vendor willing to invoice the concept.

Our bills remain not legal tender, not illegal chicken, and not admissible as proof that you understand compound interest.

This conclusion is binding only in the decorative sense. Nothing herein creates a duty, right, lien, lunch entitlement or reasonable expectation that Reginald the gavel will answer correspondence. By continuing to read, you acknowledge having already continued.