` ::::::::::::::::``have complete self-governance`` - if by that you mean ``are fully independent sovereign states``, then OK. If you mean that they are ``somehow not fully``, then the sources disagree with you. They can even change their constitutions without any consultation or approval from NZ-the-state. ::::::::::::::::You still don't appear to make the distinction between NZ-the-state and NZ-the-realm. When you say ``not bothered to switch from New Zealands head of state`` do you refer to NZ-the-state head of state or NZ-the-realm head of state? Sources show the CI head of state is NZ-the-realm head of state and not NZ-the-state head of state. ::::::::::::::::The other association cases like Monaco, Liechtenstein, Palau, etc. are of course not the same, but in principle very similar to Cook Islands and Niue association - and in some cases it's even deeper and more infringing on the independence, than for CI and Niue. ::::::::::::::::There was outmaneuvering not in terms of speed, but in content. But this is only remotely relevant to our disagreement here - how to arrange the extent sentences.  ::::::::::::::::So, do you agree with the latest proposal above or you will propose a different sentence for the head of state/RNZ&Commonwealth; or you prefer that to be a verbatim quote from the source (thus making it too long and inconsistent with the other extents with realm sentence)?   `