A universal theory of human phonology should be clearly specified and falsifiable. To turn Optimality Theory (OT) into a complete proposal for phonological UG, one must put some cards on the table: What kinds of constraints may an OT grammar state? And how can anyone tell what data this grammar predicts, without constructing infinite tableaux? In this talk I'll motivate a restrictive formalization of OT that allows just two types of simple, local constraint. Gen freely proposes gestures and prosodic constituents; the constraints try to force these to coincide or not coincide temporally. An efficient algorithm exists to find the optimal candidate. I will argue that despite its simplicity, primitive OT is expressive enough to describe and unify most of the work in OT phonology. However, it is provably more constrained: because it is unable to mimic deeply non-local mechanisms like Generalized Alignment, it forces a new and arguably better account of metrical stress typology. Finally, I will sketch a more radical extension, directional evaluation, which changes how a constraint ranks candidates. This change brings back some of the descriptive convenience of Generalized Alignment, but it also constrains OT grammars to describe only regular relations, which is linguistically and computationally desirable.