The framework's engine (ordeal-as-transformative — its central value) is also its most reliable failure-mode (ordeal-romanticized-into-harm). The framework is structurally at war with itself: the disposition it valorizes (push, intensify, embrace the hard) is the disposition its own safety-floors must repeatedly override. Cold-exposure is the sharpest: the page says outright that this is "the one practice where the ordeal-disposition must be overridden, because the limit is death" — the framework explicitly turning against its own engine.
An intensity-valorizing framework's maturity is measured by the strength of the brakes it puts on its own engine — and the framework's wisdom is less in its intensity (the engine) than in its governance of that intensity (the brakes: the recovery-discipline, the clinical-floor, the bounded-not-literal, the mandatory-return). Falsifiable: if you strip the framework's safety-floors, does the engine reliably produce harm? (The cold-exposure/ordeal-therapy/descent cases say yes.)
For promotion: the engine-is-the-failure-mode structure holds across multiple intensity-frameworks (not just Solar Idealism); the "maturity = brakes on the engine" claim is more than a restatement.
[x] Speculative [ ] Being tested [ ] Ready to promote