First, I respectfully disagree with Jean-Michel and I wouldn't recommend "NVGO," because I'm my interpretation "Ensuring..." is still an ongoing activity, thus it meets the definition of an accountability.
I think your explanation of the harm caused is good (I'll just call it "reduces clarity" or "creates confusion"). And it seems like a description of harm. So, check on that.
In addition, the objection has good data (in fact it has perfect data), because the word "Ensuring..." is right there on the screen in front of you. That's the only data you need because the harm is based on the wording itself. It's a tricky criterion for people to really understand because, in a way, any/every objection is in a way anticipating. Proposals are new governance, which means you couldn't have tried it yet. But that isn't really what that question is asking. So, try rephrasing the question in your head..."Do I know that the word is confusing now...or am I anticipating that it will be confusing?" You know it's confusing now. So, check on that.
So, that gets you past the first two criteria. In order to actually make it valid though, the following things also must be true:
- The lack of clarity would have to be introduced by the proposal (Meaning if there was no accountability before, then "Ensuring..." would still be a step forward in clarity and thus it wouldn't be a valid objection.
- And, one of your roles needs to be impacted by that lack of clarity.
It's more likely in fact that the objection would fail one (or both) of the last two test criteria. If not, well then, you have your valid objection!
Finally, if your role is impacted, but the tension isn't caused by the proposal itself (because at least it's a step forward in clarity as it is), then you don't need an objection to fix it. Just add your own agenda item and ask for it to go next. ; )