Why This Is an Infrastructure Problem ​

A different axis is considered here: who holds the shared reading, and at the cost of what dependency this is achieved. The issue here is not the insufficiency of the event log as a coordination model, but the infrastructural center of interpretation.

The problem described by Realith cannot be reduced to the question of which application is more convenient or which service organizes a workflow better.

If coordination rests on an application owned by one party, that owner almost inevitably becomes a hidden center of interpretation:

• it is that system that determines what should count as valid;
• it is its internal logic that sets the form of the object;
• it is within it that the boundaries of visibility, access, and admissibility of action reside.

For some classes of tasks, this is acceptable. But where independent subjects participate, such a scheme turns infrastructure into private power over a shared process.

Why one platform is insufficient ​

One platform can provide a unified reading within itself, but it does not eliminate architectural dependence on its own owner.

Why one event log is insufficient ​

An event log can preserve the sequence of actions, but by itself it does not create a shared holding of the object, its relations, and its current state between independent systems.

Where Realith sits ​

Realith is described as a layer between independent participants and systems.
Its task is not to replace contract, law, or application logic, but to hold the architectural form without which coordination disintegrates into private readings.

That is why the matter is one of infrastructure rather than an application owned by one party.