Does a protocol only get an existential under this proposal if it fully conforms to itself? If so, I’m in support of this. If not, I think it needs to be required to be marked in such a way that it’s clear at the site of use that it is not “complete” when it doesn’t self-conform. I am partial to the spelling partial P (pun intended) from the earlier thread for anything that is an existential that doesn’t have all the promised functionality of the protocol it represents.