Rule following (n.) seems to require that one could also have obeyed other signs, and so an ability is posited as an inner state that cannot be found.
Rule following (n.) can go astray naturally: the pupil told to add 1 who adds 2 after 100 and asks 'Didn't I do the same?' cannot be corrected by 'Don't you see?'
Rule following (n.) presupposes a custom: no one could have followed a rule just once in the history of the world.
Rule following (n.) causes no fights: whether a step accords with the rule never comes to blows, and that belongs to the framework of language.
Rule following (n.) is fundamental to our language-game; it characterises what we call description.
Rule following (n.) is a human activity.
Rule following (n.) feels like following a thread that is already there: we say not so that's how I went, but so that's how it goes.
Rule following (n.) can be described no more closely than by describing how it is learnt, an everyday description like that of cooking or sewing.
Rule following (n.) can only be understood by someone who can already follow a rule.
Rule following (n.) differs from behaving in accord with a rule; as a description of behaviour the rule is only a hypothesis.