The "final offer" that Boris Johnson has made to the EU includes a provision that the single-market (for goods) arrangement for Northern Ireland needs to be explicitly approved and then extended by Stormont (the Northern Ireland assembly) every four years.
But this seems rather weird. After all, the UK has not been explicitly taking votes in its own Parliament every 4 years to stay in the EU (and crash out by default otherwise). Nor do EEA countries (which are in the Single Market but not in the EU) do such a thing. Also, the EU Parliament has rejected this point specifically saying:
The [EU] parliament has three main concerns with the proposals: [... 3rd one:] the veto given to Stormont “makes an agreement contingent, uncertain, provisional” and subject to a unilateral decision.
The EU and other critics also raised concerns that Stormon is hardly working as it is, not having [re]convened for around 1,000 days.
Some alternatives were hinted by some EU commentators (but not through official channels) e.g. making an arrangement for Northern Ireland hold until there is a referendum (in Northern Ireland) that changes it.
So, has Johnson's government explained in more detail why the consider this arrangement they propose (with Stormont voting every 4 years) best for Northern Ireland? And why the UK government considers a putative provision for a "NIexit" referendum (for Northern Ireland to terminate their single market participation) a worse alternative? After all, Johnson's rhetoric has been centered on the legitimacy/mandate of the UK's own Brexit referendum. So why is a similar referendum-based solution not envisaged by Johnson's government for Northern Ireland with respect to their (more limited) proposed participation in the single market?