Claims cross boundaries constantly in operational settings, and the systems receiving them act on what they say rather than on what supports them. Where the originator may be a generator rather than an observer, a well-formed claim can acquire an authority its basis never warranted, without anyone lying and without any step being wrong. This work named that failure False Determinism: the unsanctioned elevation of a claim's epistemic authority at a handover boundary, in the absence of evidence sufficient to warrant the elevation. Elevation there describes what the receiving system does with the claim; it is not a property stored in the claim's basis, and the discipline developed here has no operation that raises one.
The thesis is that sufficiency is relative to the act. A claim that a circuit is de-energised is adequate for deciding what to investigate and inadequate for deciding whether to touch it, and the difference lies in what the act demands of its evidence rather than in any confidence attached to the claim. Admissibility is therefore a relation between a basis and an intended action, and the work asked whether that relation can be represented, carried across a boundary, and mechanically decided.
The research questions, answered directly
What minimal representation of a claim's basis is sufficient to decide admissibility for an intended action, and what must it capture beyond origin and integrity?
Partially answered. The work establishes a minimal implemented record for the distinctions derived in the preceding chapters, and the evaluation does not establish that this representation is sufficient for realistic operational requirements. Fifteen of the twenty unrepresentable cases required information the record model does not carry at all.
What the record does carry follows from those distinctions. It holds acquisition, semantic operation and production mechanism as separate fields, a typed origin set, authority with validity, establishment time alongside the oldest ancestral establishment time, established scope, and travelling elision records. Beyond origin and integrity it must capture what operation produced the claim from its evidence, what kind of events its ancestry contains, and how each field of the record itself came to be populated. That last was not anticipated: it emerged when the first adapter showed that a configuration profile could assert a fact the record then presented indistinguishably from an observation.
Sufficiency and minimality are therefore both open. The record was adequate for the requirements that could be expressed at all, and the corpus shows a substantial class it cannot support. Whether a larger record would be sufficient, and whether this one is minimal for what it does support, are questions the evaluation did not settle.
What inheritance rule correctly governs derived claims, such that probabilistic ancestry cannot be laundered through subsequent derivation?
Answered, and mechanically enforced. A derived claim's origin set is the union of its evidential parents' origins, less any explicitly elided, plus any fresh acquisitions, plus the typed event that produced the claim itself. The final term is what closes the laundering path: without it a generation is visible only while it remains the current mechanism, so a generated claim passed through a deterministic extraction would present as a plain calculation over measured ancestry. Origins keep their kinds, duplicates and parent order are inert, and an origin disappears by exactly one route, an explicit elision carrying its ground, its actor and the basis warranting it.
The rule holds for derivations the discipline mediates. It cannot govern one it never saw, which the evaluation demonstrated rather than merely conceded.
Under what conditions may a claim previously inadmissible for an action become admissible for that same action after its basis changes, and can the responsible basis change be represented and checked mechanically?
Answered, and the answer overturned the question's original form. The work began by asking when a claim's standing may be elevated and found, on building it, that no descriptive field of a basis is elevatable at all. Two reports do not become a measurement; two independent authorities do not make either more authoritative. What changes is which supports a basis contains, through composition, fresh acquisition, verification or an explicit ancestry reset, and the verdict follows from reevaluating the changed basis rather than from any status stored on it.
The change is representable and checkable: the worked demonstration shows one claim refused for a consequential act, re-established by an independent measurement with a travelling reset, and admitted for the same act on reevaluation, with no marker anywhere asserting that anything was promoted. Mechanically, intersecting origins veto the treatment of two supports as independent, and disjoint origins remove that veto while granting nothing.
Does the resulting discipline reject False Determinism in realistic OT scenarios without rejecting so much legitimate practice as to be unusable?
Not answered, and the reason is itself the finding. The question presupposes that the requirements of realistic scenarios can be stated in the artefact's terms. For thirty-five of thirty-nine frozen requirements they could not be, so the discipline was never put to the test the question describes. Of the four that could, three were decided correctly and one was an unsafe admission arising outside the artefact's reach. Three cases support no answer to a question of that scope.