Thanks for bringing up these informed questions @coffee-crusher
To answer your first question:
Perceived conflict of interest is taken out from v1.0 as an automatic trigger for CoI enforcement, to precisely cover the policy from being weaponized. This means that, regardless of what other Stakeholders may perceive, the subject in question is the one who does a self-assessment and discloses what may be considered relevant.
Also, it is to be noted that this policy is only enforceable for Governance Body Members and Endorsed Delegates, who can be removed for cause, as stated in the Constitution and the Screening Committee Charter.
For all other Stakeholders, disclosing conflicts of Interest is an expected behavior in the Code of Conduct, and enforcement related to Code of Conduct is proposed to be managed by Platform Moderators through a complaint form in the House of Stake Documentation, to avoid reporting happening in public forums, and protect the parties and the community from case-related noise, with internal discretion.
In relation to “unsolicited tokens” that could be considered associated with a proposal, as soon as one notices, disclosing them is the expected behavior. To ensure they are not weaponized against a voter, the disclosure statement may detail if they were unsolicited, and for which concept they should be considered, or not, relevant for managing their participation.