Diagnostic differentiation answers the objection that unconditional standing must treat everyone identically. It does not. A person who appears nonparticipatory may be unable, injured, addicted, depressed, cognitively impaired, demoralized, poorly matched to the field, genuinely refusing, strategically exploiting support, or simply choosing a quiet low-output life — and those call for utterly different responses. The ecology can and should ask what is happening here? in fine detail.
What it must not do is let that question collapse into a different one — does this person still count? The intervention differentiates; the standing does not. This is the working form of the rule that standing is not approval: a society can tailor treatment, support, expectation, and even consequence to the actual condition without ever making basic membership contingent on the diagnosis. Differentiate the response endlessly; never differentiate the standing.