This essay proposes Reconstructive Threshold Philosophy as a framework for analyzing the interval before action: the moment in which an individual, institution, platform, machine-mediated system, wound, public room, or symbolic frame may begin to move before judgment has returned. Its central claim is that many failures of agency begin prior to visible decision, in pre-action capture: the seizure of attention, interpretation, affect, available motion, institutional possibility, and technical affordance before the subject, office, public, or user experiences itself as choosing. This journal-polish revision preserves the clarification of the living interval. It keeps Manfred Frank as a controlled interlocutor for the distinction between a living capacity and its later objectification, while making explicit that RTF translates that warning structurally rather than ontologically. The essay also distinguishes Frank’s ontological limit from RTF’s structural limit: consciousness is not reducible to an observed object, while the pre-action interval is not protected by being displayed as a marker of judgment, review, delay, room-awareness, or aliveness. RTF instead treats living capacity as situated and temporal: inherited rooms carry momentum, present rooms distribute force, and new frames alter direction before action binds. The vocabulary of the living must therefore remain answerable to dynamic tests of room-motion and threshold pulse rather than degenerating into post-truth markers. This essay does not claim originality in the broad diagnosis that persons, institutions, corrective movements, technologies, liberating forms, or founding names can themselves become captured. Nor does it claim originality in the general demand that knowledge, institutions, and methods remain revisable. Its narrower contribution is the conjunction of three demands. First, the corrective itself must be audited re-entrantly: a brake, helper, method, guardrail, founding name, democratic room, philosophical vocabulary, or machine-facing safeguard must be examined for whether it has become the capture it was meant to prevent. Second, the same failure must be tested across scale: body, habit, family, bureaucracy, public crowd, platform, institution, machine interface, and inherited founding structure. Third, contemporary machine-mediated life makes a temporal failure newly visible: a frame can now be personalized, polished, ranked, retrieved, cited, and sometimes bound to action inside the interval between prompt and answer. The essay clarifies threshold as a family of intervals - pre-action, counter-threshold, machine, room, democratic, and post-threshold - and distinguishes threshold sensitivity from reconstructive discipline: the first names the perceptual capacity to notice the interval before a frame becomes binding; the second names the operative practice of rebuilding the frame once the interval has been seen. Its temporal, counterfactual, and situated axes orient this perception without turning it into a new faculty, checklist, or second originality claim. The essay develops this argument through linked concepts: pre-action capture, the living interval, room-motion, threshold pulse, the living brake, threshold sensitivity, reconstructive discipline, assistance without occupation, machine-facing threshold ethics, room-formation, democratic threshold capacity, distributed threshold capacity, founder entropy, and post-threshold stewardship. It argues that the framework is needed in a world where rooms scale through machines: a frame that once lived inside a family, sect, bureaucracy, party, institution, platform, or movement can now be translated into interfaces, retrieval systems, rankings, recommendations, policy layers, and autonomous tool-use. AI is not treated as a conscious threshold subject, but as both an operational stress test and, where authority has been delegated, a non-conscious operational actor: a system whose classifications, plans, tool calls, and machine-to-machine handoffs may compress or leave intact the interval before judgment, and may bind physical or virtual environments before fresh human review returns. Founder entropy is treated here not as the framework’s apex principle, but as its macro-scale decay test: whether a founding name, corrective form, institution, platform, or protective doctrine has begun to attack the interval it was built to preserve. In v17.3.5 this macro-scale decay is explicitly linked to distributed threshold capacity: the social ability of many persons across many rooms to preserve the interval before action without transferring political judgment to a caste, founder, priesthood, party, technocracy, platform, market, or machine. The expanded argument develops decision sovereignty as a secondary normative synthesis rather than a fourth pillar. It names the preservation of reason-giving, contestability, bounded authority, responsibility, and repair as action moves from frame to authorisation, execution, and effect. Sovereignty here does not mean unlimited human command or a nominal veto. It means that neither a technical system nor an institution may invisibly occupy the capacities to reopen a frame, examine evidence, limit delegated power, interrupt action, or answer for consequences. Its governing test remains accountable motion, not sovereignty elevated into a new source of command. Version v18.3.0 preserves the v18.0.0 clarification architecture, the v17.3.7 political-somatic architecture, and the v18.1.3 Section 14 compression while retaining the Section 5 account of the living interval, marker-capacity substitution, room-motion, threshold pulse, and the anti-aura tests for living vocabulary. It does not add a new pillar, threshold family, hinge, machine doctrine, AI-safety taxonomy, implementation standard, or compliance protocol. It keeps distributed threshold capacity as the social-scale maturation of democratic threshold capacity, while clarifying that the separate DTC article narrows the same phrase to socio-technical decision chains and that fast cognition is not itself capture: capture begins when a fast frame, heuristic, classification, or completion becomes binding in an ecology where judgment can no longer inspect, refuse, revise, or repair it. To show how the framework operates, the essay includes a worked example of an AI-assisted institutional triage room. The worked example strengthens the differentia comparison in Section 3 by placing the framework’s binding-point question beside its nearest sociological, cybernetic, pragmatist, critical-theory, and algorithmic-accountability predecessors. The example illustrates how the conjunction of re-entrant audit, cross-scale analysis, and machine-speed capture focuses attention on the binding point at which a corrective mechanism becomes an instrument of capture - a judgment no single predecessor framework is organized to make in that combined form. The essay also strengthens its own limits. It distinguishes Somatic Echo micro-cases from Codex prose; preserves behavioral tests for living rooms; adds an Arendtian objection that pre-action audit may reduce praxis to poiesis; addresses the Adorno-Williams worry that re-entrant audit can become infinite self-administration; and treats threshold slip as an internal risk of this essay itself rather than merely a later misuse by readers. The final claim is neither stillness nor automatic release. It is accountable motion: action that preserves the interval in which judgment can return. At social scale, that interval lives in votes that cannot be weighed by a self-appointed measure-room, in institutions that can reopen a form, in citizens who can refuse contempt, in founders who can become unnecessary, and in machinemediated rooms where fluency is not mistaken for returned judgment.