Commander Bracket 1 Clarification – Perch Protection

{"ops":[{"insert":"I wanted to ask about Archidekt’s current Commander Bracket implementation regarding extra-turn cards in Bracket 1.\nRight now, Archidekt appears to classify Perch Protection as illegal in Bracket 1 because the card contains “extra turn” text. However, Perch Protection does not grant the controller an extra turn — it grants opponents extra turns instead.\nFrom my understanding of the official Commander Brackets philosophy, the restriction on extra turns seems primarily intended to prevent gameplay patterns involving:\nturn monopolization"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"solitaire gameplay"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"chaining personal extra turns"},{"attributes":{"list":"bullet"},"insert":"\n"},{"insert":"Perch Protection does not create those patterns and is fundamentally political/symmetrical in nature.\nI also noticed that Deckcheck currently appears to allow Perch Protection in Bracket 1 while still flagging cards like Emrakul, the Promised End separately, suggesting there may already be differing interpretations between bracket evaluators.\nWould it be possible to review whether Archidekt’s implementation is currently using a broad text-match rule (“contains extra turn text”) rather than a gameplay/intended-controller interpretation?\nI’m not trying to argue aggressively — I just wanted clarification because the current implementation may be stricter than the intended philosophy behind Bracket 1.\nThank you for your time.\n"}]}