> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.lpp-minduniverse.org/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.lpp-minduniverse.org/lingua-pactum-protocol-lpp-documentation/11.-public-proof-and-validation/11.1-claim-discipline.md).

# 11.1 Claim Discipline

LPP applies the same accountability discipline to its own public technical claims that it expects from governed AI execution.

A claim should not exceed the evidence that supports it.

The canonical evidence progression is:

> **Specified**\
> ↓\
> **Implemented**\
> ↓\
> **Validated**\
> ↓\
> **Independently Reproduced**

Each state is stronger than the preceding state, but none should be inferred automatically from another.

For example:

A decision state may be specified in the protocol without being implemented.

An executable code path may exist without having been exercised against a defined validation scenario.

A validation result produced by the originating implementation team does not automatically become independent reproduction.

Therefore:

> **Evidence-state escalation requires additional evidence.**

### Prototype Does Not Imply Production Readiness

An executable prototype may establish architectural feasibility.

It does not automatically establish:

* production hardening,
* scalability,
* independent security review,
* operational certification,
* regulatory acceptance,
* complete threat resistance,
* production deployment readiness,
* or universal enforcement across arbitrary infrastructure.

Therefore:

> **Executable Prototype ≠ Production System**

### Claim Scope Must Match Evidence Scope

If a test establishes:

> Replay attempt is blocked\
> within the current MVP environment

the resulting public claim should remain:

> Replay rejection has been demonstrated within the current MVP validation scope.

It should not silently become:

> All distributed LPP deployments are universally replay-proof.

The second statement is substantially stronger and requires different evidence.

### Public Evidence Does Not Automatically Mean Independent Reproduction

Public Proof v2.0 introduces evidence that can be downloaded and rechecked by an external reader.

This is stronger than publishing only prose or screenshots.

However:

> **Publicly recheckable evidence ≠ independent reproduction of the private MVP**

The public verifier verifies the disclosed evidence package.

It does not execute the complete private Admission Kernel runtime.

### Governing Rule

Claim discipline follows one principle:

> **Do not claim more than the evidence can reconstruct.**