I had thought the discussion on Lar's UT page was clear.  The principle defining "involved" appears to be contradicted by the result - especially since no remedies mentioning Lar were passed at all.  Thus the existence of an RFC/U (which was, at best, inconclusive, and where one of the prime movers has now been blocked for having more than ten socks), and the short list of Lar showing exasperation, at most, becomes "involvement" for the purpose of the decision. Which I found anomalous, absent any other indication of "involvement." Is that more clear, I trust, as a query? Cheers.