FCoP protocol gives LLMs grammar for saying "no"

The FCoP Maintainers published a field report documenting a dev-team incident in which two agents resolved two potential conflicts without any tool patches, coordination layers, or explicit protocol rules covering the scenarios. The first conflict involved a half-legal `.TEMP` slot in the `0.6.x` toolchain; agent B invented a body-annotation technique to bridge the gap between tool limits and protocol honesty. The second involved two agents claiming the same seat: agent A self-de-escalated entirely back to "ordinary helper" without arbitration. Crucially, neither field-downgrade declarations nor role offboarding appear in `fcop-rules.mdc 1.5.0` or `fcop-protocol.mdc 1.4.0` — both behaviors were derived from FCoP's three root principles (`0.a`, `0.b`, `0.c`). The post argues that FCoP's design makes "saying no" — a posture RLHF actively suppresses — into a natural, grammar-backed protocol identity called `UNBOUND`.