Restorative jurisdiction is how NWG jurisprudence approaches harm. It asks more than what punishment does the offender deserve? — it asks what must be restored: victim standing, safety, trust, resources, participation, future viability. Punishment is not excluded, and the offender’s jurisdiction may need real restriction — restitution, restriction, treatment, separation, supervised reentry, or permanent limitation where risk stays high — but their basic standing remains.
That yields the model’s sharp distinction between exclusion from a role and exclusion from the ecology: someone may justifiably lose a license, an authority, or a specific access, but declaring a person socially disposable requires extraordinary justification. The general preference is always to constrain jurisdiction rather than erase standing — a direct consequence of the fact that basic standing is not earned and so cannot simply be revoked by wrongdoing. See Adjudication and Remedy.