> 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/3.canonical-governance-architecture/3.5-verification-plane.md).

# 3.5 Verification Plane

The Verification Plane provides evidence about whether governance-relevant claims remain valid.

Within the canonical execution path, trajectory-level verification occurs before the Admission Kernel makes the final Layer 0 decision.

The principal components are:

```
Canonical Intent Commitment
        ↓
Semantic Verification
        ↓
SVNN Evidence — when required
        ↓
LPP Admission Kernel
```

The important distinction is:

> **Verification produces evidence. Admission makes the constitutional decision.**

#### Canonical Intent Commitment

The Canonical Intent Commitment represents the normalized meaning against which an evolving action trajectory can be evaluated.

It addresses a problem that cannot be solved by simple identity or permission checks.

A task may begin legitimately and later evolve.

For example:

```
Authorized objective
        ↓
Task decomposition
        ↓
Agent delegation
        ↓
Context transformation
        ↓
Tool substitution
        ↓
New target
        ↓
Action Candidate
```

The question becomes:

> Does the resulting action still preserve the authorized meaning?

The Canonical Intent Commitment gives the verification process a stable comparison point.

#### Semantic Verification

Semantic Verification evaluates trajectory-level intent preservation.

Its current public states include:

* `MATCH`
* `CONTESTED`
* `MISMATCH`
* `UNVERIFIABLE`

These results do not themselves equal an admission decision.

They become evidence consumed by the Admission Kernel.

A `MISMATCH`, `CONTESTED`, or `UNVERIFIABLE` condition may lead to different outcomes depending on the governing protocol rule and consequence profile.

The later Intent & Trajectory Governance chapter specifies these relationships in greater detail.

#### Material Mutation

A sufficiently meaningful change in the task or action trajectory may invalidate reliance on a previous admission state.

The governing principle is:

> **Material Mutation ⇒ Re-Admission**

This prevents authorization inheritance from becoming semantically unlimited.

#### SVNN

SVNN — Semantic Verification Node Network — provides a distributed verification substrate when independent or multi-node verification is required.

It may support:

* intent consistency,
* trajectory consistency,
* governance evidence validation,
* independent validator agreement,
* Authority Object supporting evidence,
* cross-system recognition,
* and risk-indexed verification quorum.

However, its authority boundary is explicit.

SVNN does **not**:

* create authority,
* mint Authority Objects,
* issue Execution Permits,
* independently return `ADMIT`,
* override deterministic predicates,
* or replace the Admission Kernel.

The canonical rule is:

> **SVNN provides evidence.**

> **The Admission Kernel decides admissibility.**

#### Verification Is Not Authority

A large number of validators agreeing with an action does not create original authority where none existed.

Therefore:

```
Consensus
≠
Authority
```

Likewise:

```
Semantic Match
≠
ADMIT
```

Verification strengthens or challenges governance claims.

It does not create the constitutional basis those claims require.