BRC-190: Repair access-gate manifest and ban references

apps/0190.md

@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ Where a manifest states at least one condition, admission is self-service: a rea
 | `ungateBurn`                                      | decimal string | conditional | satoshis to burn to ungate; required while any condition is on |
 | `successor`                                       | handle         | no          | who may assume custody after dormancy, per 8.3                 |
 | `dormantAfter`                                    | blocks         | no          | holder silence after which `successor` may sign, per 8.3       |
-| `token` `vouch` `renounce` `quorum` `fee` `roles` | object         | no          | conditions, per 2.3                                            |
+| `token` `vouch` `renounce` `quorum` `timelock` `fee` `roles` | object         | no          | conditions, per 2.3                                            |
 
 An absent condition and one present with `"on": false` evaluate identically; the distinction exists for an editor holding a half-configured condition and nowhere else.
 
@@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ A **member** reads the room and posts in it. A **mod** also deletes messages and
 
 Banning is strictly downward and never sideways: no role bans its own rank. An admin banning an admin is the one action that can empty a room's admin set in a single click. **Custody is not a rank** — the holder sits underneath the ladder rather than on top of it, may act on any participant, and cannot be acted on; without that, an ungated room where everybody is an admin has nobody able to act on anybody. Deleting a message leaves a record that a message was removed rather than silently closing the gap, since a transcript that rewrites itself is one nobody can reason about afterwards.
 
-A **ban** is recorded as a statement against the handle under BRC-169 section 10.7, scoped to the room — so it has an author, a time and a claim, which a row in a ban array does not. It is **attributed**, reversing BRC-169 section 10.7.1's default: that default protects somebody speaking against a peer at their own risk, and a moderator acting inside a room they moderate is in the opposite position. A room-scoped statement does not contribute to the subject's standing anywhere else and does not satisfy a renounce gate in another room; being unwelcome in one room is not a reputation, and a mechanism letting one moderator's decision follow somebody across the network would be worse than the list it replaced. The subject is told, and by whom, and any role that could impose the ban can lift it. How a ban is then read back as a condition — where the record lives, what scoping means at evaluation time, and what lifting is — is section 4.5.
+A **ban** is recorded as a statement against the handle under BRC-169 section 10.7, scoped to the room — so it has an author, a time and a claim, which a row in a ban array does not. It is **attributed**, reversing BRC-169 section 10.7.1's default: that default protects somebody speaking against a peer at their own risk, and a moderator acting inside a room they moderate is in the opposite position. A room-scoped statement does not contribute to the subject's standing anywhere else and does not satisfy a renounce gate in another room; being unwelcome in one room is not a reputation, and a mechanism letting one moderator's decision follow somebody across the network would be worse than the list it replaced. The subject is told, and by whom, and any role that could impose the ban can lift it. How a ban is then read back as a condition — where the record lives, what scoping means at evaluation time, and what lifting is — is section 4.6.
 
 Closing a room is a signed statement carrying who closed it and when; conforming clients stop accepting posts and render the room as closed. History remains readable, because section 9 is why nothing here can un-deliver a message, and a client presenting closure as deletion has promised something no client can perform.