Specifically, it states you need Unity, so no. To imply otherwise is to say the rules weren’t rules.
That isn’t what I’m getting at. The standard is that everyone must agree, then changes are passed.
But they implemented the changes before there was agreement.
There was no room in the Articles for that.
Pointing to “look eventually Rhode island gave their consent” doesn’t matter, if they were already executing the changes before that consensus was reached.
They violated the Articles by doing that. Delegates from the two dissenting states pointed this out.