Plural participation and contestable revision may reduce some alignment and value-lock-in risks, but they introduce representation, capture, manipulation, governance-latency, correlated-evaluator, and power-concentration risks.

Plural participation can keep alternative values, local knowledge, minority objections, and affected-party concerns available for correction instead of fixing one designer’s objective as permanent. Contestable revision can likewise make alignment an ongoing institutional process rather than a one-time specification. Those benefits are conditional: participation may be unrepresentative, identities or models may be correlated, wealthy or coordinated actors may capture decisions, open channels may be flooded or manipulated, and slow review may become irrelevant at operational speed. The hypothesis assumes participants have meaningful standing, disagreement remains legible, authority is bounded, and challenges can actually change decisions. It does not imply that more participants are safer, that majority preference is aligned, or that openness eliminates concentrated power. Architecturally, plurality requires independence tests, appeals, affected-party protections, latency measurement, conflict disclosure, and retained dissent.