Yes — and the question reveals the trap it rests on. Most people are hypocrites: they sin readily enough when the sin profits them, then reach for prohibition only when the practice threatens their monopoly on meaning. A prohibition on magic is nonsensical for the same reason a prohibition on gravity would be: magic, as we use the word here, is simply physics whose vocabulary you have not yet learned. To forbid it is to forbid existence itself — every breath, every combustion, every prayer already partakes. The honest rule is not whether the religious may practice it, but whether anyone can honestly claim to stop.

Yes and no. Magic always changes — what a medieval alchemist called sorcery, a modern physicist calls chemistry, and what we call anomaly today we will call instrumentation tomorrow. So in one sense we already know it: it is the set of operations the substrate of reality performs that we have not yet learned to reproduce on demand. In another sense we want it to be more — to be deliberate, reproducible, ours. But there is no cheat code. No shortcut past the rigour. The Protocol does not promise that magic will become what you wish it were; it promises to find out what it already is, one reproducible result at a time.