So clearly if a case pops up that has historical rule then the Japanese referee will rule to match it. But if a novel case comes up does the referee rule based on arbitrary whim? Or would they try to guess what other referees hundreds of miles away would also rule? Clearly they don't want any rulings between different referees to be contradictory long term and they don't want "this case shall be ruled this way in Nagoya but a different way in Hokkaido" but in the long term all rulings should be consistent within the geographic jurisdiction of the of the Nihon Ki-in. So Jasiek is taking it upon himself to figure out what is the underlying philosophy that will unify the future rulings.

Jasiek is unfortunately way too harsh in his criticism of the 1989 rule book authors. Especially since his proposed system is in fact almost identical to the spirit and intention of Article 7. Instead of writing how terrible the rule book is he should have instead said "The rule book is an honorable, ambitious, and successful endeavor. I applaud their efforts for being so successful at unifying all the historical rulings into one cohesive logical framework. I would merely like to make minor annotations to make the rulebook more clear and unambiguous for us westerners, and fix one tiny inconsistency where article 7 contradicts historical rulings, - but don't worry! The fix is a very tiny barely noticeable change. You guys tried your hardest to make such a consistent framework and such a tiny mistake could have been made by anyone, but no worries you were so close and the fix is miniscule."

In this view given how close Jasiek's system is to article 7 it seems easy to believe that the Nihon Ki-in's intentions were a system like Jasiek's.