Propose granting Role::Admin (Owner only). UserDirectory.SetRole refuses that role in the granting direction and names this, for the same reason it already refuses `owner`: an operator who can appoint operators can appoint accomplices, and the admin seat carries every identity mutation except role granting.

The owners' verdict over one PERSON's standing.

It passes on a MAJORITY of the snapshotted voters, not the unanimity the OWNER consilia demand, and the difference is deliberate. Unanimity guards the owner roster because a minority able to add owners by majority grows itself into a majority. Neither thing decided here has that property: admin cannot vote in any consilium and cannot be granted owner, and a suspension is defensive and reversible by the same body. Against that, unanimity here would COST safety — a hold lapses in 24h, so ratifying one races a clock, and under unanimity one unreachable owner does not delay the verdict, they decide it by releasing a compromised account at the deadline.

What is preserved is the property that matters: the initiator is excluded from the voter set and the threshold is at least one, so no single actor ever acts alone.