I stand by my previously established belief that awarding honorifics to individuals who have retired from their government office is without question a violation of the Concordat. Such titles are exactly what the prohibition was made to target.
As to Hussars, I am not so confident that they actually have “practical responsibility in government”. Yes, they have the slightest facade of executive authority painted over them in that they can vote up or down on World Assembly resolutions in order to guide the delegate vote, but they do not actually have a responsibility to do so. The majority of Hussars exhibit no government activity whatsoever, and only a handful of them engage enough to even pretend at being “WAA staffers”. An argument for Hussar legality based on a claim of them holding practical responsibility is, at best, self-deceptive. The only colorable argument I can see for Hussar recognition being legal is that it is not a title but a medal, much like other recognitions awarded by previous governments.
Registered Voters, on the other hand, cannot violate the Concordat, as it is the Concordat itself that establishes this category/title. Since the Concordat establishes absolute legal truth, we must adopt an interpretation of the Concordat that either (1) Registered Voter is not a title or (2) it confers some sort of practical governmental responsibility despite no evidence to that effect, as to avoid self-contradiction.