Method & Evidence

This work adopts a procedural and evidentiary method. It does not propose a methodology for decision-making, system design, or institutional reform. Its concern is the recording and clarity of authority at decision-time, not the optimisation or evaluation of action.

Methodological posture

• The inquiry is confined to admissibility, not judgment.
• Authority is examined only at the temporal boundary immediately before action.
• No assumptions are made about intent, correctness, proportionality, or outcome.

Decision-time evidence

Evidence is understood as the material record that demonstrates whether authority was resolved at the moment immediately prior to action. The emphasis is on when authority is fixed, not why a decision was taken or how it was justified.

Where authority is not evidenced at decision-time, restraint remains lawful. The absence of evidence is treated as a procedural condition, not as a failure to decide.

Separation from execution

Evidence of authority is distinct from evidence of execution. Records of what occurred cannot substitute for proof that permission existed before action. This separation preserves the admissibility boundary and prevents authority from being reconstructed after the fact.

Neutrality of the record

The evidentiary posture is outcome-independent:

• No claims are made about effectiveness or success.
• No compliance or performance assertions are derived.
• No causal or predictive inferences are introduced.

The record serves a single purpose: to clarify whether the pre-requisites for action were satisfied at decision-time.

All evidentiary meaning is governed by authoritative textual artefacts recorded in the SHA-256 Registry (append-only). Rendered views and summaries are explanatory only.