You ask good philosophical questions that go to the heart of the experiment. Part of the framing is to understand what the experiment is trying to do, and I think it represents different things to different actors.

One side sees no room for interpretation in code (like some utopian techno Scalia), another sees the building of a post-national infrastructure that needs nourishment. The simple fact is that code is human logic, which is at most a mental model applicable for a moment only, which always needs interpretation and updating.

The US is a good (not perfect) example with its three branches of government — executive (power), legislative (code) and judicial (interpretation) — as a resolution mechanism. Better than just relying on the philosopher King. So why is the community so averse to taking constitutional lessons from history?