The idea of making the black hole membrane paradigm generally covariant and everywhere locally Lorentz invariant gives me a migraine. Dropping charges onto a s

The idea of making the black hole membrane paradigm generally covariant and everywhere locally Lorentz invariant gives me a migraine. Dropping charges onto a superthin surface (and keeping it cold, we have to consider arbitrarily large SMBHs too) or having the superthin surface emit Hawking radiation is hard to make not-a-toy (step 0: spectral structure evolution; step 1: ultraboost something, Aichelburg-Sexl style pancake; step 2: astronomer near ISCO around a distant SMBH; step 3: Rindler particles from the membrane's pole; step 4: incoming ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, GZK-like cutoff induced above membrane; ...; step N how the hell do they evolve during the PN phase of a BHB merger, and how do you match that up with the numerical relativity?). (This line of thought has taken me somewhere that seems crazy: following Giddings & Rychkov <https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0409131v1 https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0409131v1> and Yoshino & Mann (RN metric and during the LHC-will-destroy-the-world silliness) <https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605131v3 https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605131v3> can UEHCRs on a hyperbolic orbit peel off small black holes from the electromagnetic field around a black hole membrane? If a standard quiescent BH is massive enough there won't be much Hawking anything to collide with, so we won't see evaporation signals; but isn't there a nontrivial electromagnetic field strength close to even a big horizon in the membrane paradigm or anything reasonably like it? [note to self, in case I care later: Parikh & Wilczek (1997) "An Action for Black Hole Membranes" <https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9712077 https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9712077> just after eqn. (3.8)])