I would like to request people share their models for what mechanisms or laws might actually allow this sort of thing to happen.
So far as I know from only basic research, clawbacks are the result of things like tax miscalculations, contract effects (excess profit made that then has to be divided as agreed upon), insurance fraud, etc. Unless a contract was signed or criminal connection is suspected, it seems highly unlikely to me.
I've been speaking to a number of people in university organizing groups who have been aware of these issues, and almost across the board the major issue they feel is that it seems too conflict-generating/bad/guilt-inducing to essentially tell their friends and peers in their or other universities something like "Hey, I think the thing you're doing is actually causing a lot of harm, actually."
I would be very in favor of helping find ways to facilitate better communication between these groups that specifically targets ways they can improve in non-blaming, pro-social and supportive ways.
Gavin covers the rest of it, so to talk about the "parts" thing; in this context I'm using it more as a semantic handle on what it means to have internal conflict, and not explicitly as an IFS thing. Psychotherapists have been talking about individuals as being made up of "parts" from the very beginning (Freud's Id, Ego, Superego) and with all due respect to our mutual CFAR friend, if there's any other way to describe and interface with the experience of internal conflict as well, I have yet to hear it :)
In other words, I've written "a signal from one or more of your parts" as basically equivalent to "a signal that you aren't fully convinced." I think the latter is lower-resolution way of saying the former, but could be convinced it's better if people largely expect the coaching to center around IFS-type things.
As for "shoulds," I think we can get rid of the way they exist as harmful things without eliminating what you call "moral obligations," which I agree are good things (and sort of important to the "Altruist" part of Effective Altruism!). Basically I consider the two phrases to be pointing at very different phenomena in general; I think "shoulds" comes from an external source, even if it's been internalized, while moral obligations are the result of internal generators, and aren't the sort of thing that would respond to the sorts of questions and interventions that tend to dissolve shoulds.
Thanks for the writeup! I haven't read either of your stories yet (there are far too many these days for me to keep up with alongside writing my own) but I'm wondering if you participate in the /r/rational subreddit or discord community at all? A sense of community and people to talk to about the story/get more engaged feedback on questions/struggles etc you have might be helpful (sorry if this seems basic, I don't recognize your username or the story names from there but I may have missed them).