> 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/4.-governance-objects/4.9-object-lifecycle-summary.md).

# 4.9 Object Lifecycle Summary

Different governance objects have different lifecycle semantics.

They should not be treated as permanently valid merely because they once existed.

The canonical lifecycle concerns are:

```
Creation
Validation
Mutation
Revocation
Expiry
Consumption
Evidence Retention
```

#### Creation

An object must have an identifiable origin.

Examples include:

* Authority Object issuance,
* creation of Human-Authorized Intent,
* establishment of Authority–Intent Binding,
* generation of an Execution Intent,
* Permit minting after `ADMIT`,
* or Artifact emission after an admission event.

Creation alone does not imply validity.

#### Validation

Objects must be validated according to their role.

Examples include:

**Authority Object**

* structure,
* issuer,
* signatures,
* lifecycle state,
* scope,
* validity,
* revocation.

**Execution Intent**

* canonical representation,
* principal,
* target,
* parameters,
* intent hash.

**Execution Permit**

* signature,
* expiry,
* scope,
* intent binding,
* nonce,
* policy binding.

**Admission Artifact**

* signature,
* referenced authority state,
* scope commitment,
* policy state,
* replay state,
* result integrity.

#### Mutation

Not all objects should be freely mutable.

Governance-relevant changes must preserve traceability.

A material change to:

* authorized meaning,
* action target,
* scope,
* principal,
* consequence,
* delegation,
* or execution parameters

may create a new governance state rather than silently modifying the old object.

For trajectory-level intent:

> **Material Mutation ⇒ Re-Admission**

Mutation must not become a method for reusing old authority for new objectives.

#### Revocation

Revocation primarily affects authority-bearing state.

A previously valid Authority Object may cease to support future execution.

This may in turn invalidate or prevent use of downstream Permit state.

The architectural dependency is:

```
Authority revoked
        ↓
Future reliance on that authority fails
        ↓
Execution path must not continue
under the revoked legitimacy state
```

The exact continuous-admissibility behavior is defined later.

#### Expiry

Authority Objects and Execution Permits are time-bound according to their respective profiles.

A downstream Permit must not outlive the upstream authority that legitimized it.

```
Permit expiry
≤
Authority validity boundary
```

Expiry prevents stale authorization from becoming indefinite authority.

#### Consumption

Execution Permits may have consumption semantics.

The current MVP uses replay protection so that a credential cannot simply be reused indefinitely.

A Permit can therefore transition from:

```
Valid
```

to:

```
Consumed / Replay-Rejected
```

depending on the execution profile.

#### Evidence Retention

Admission Artifacts differ from operational credentials.

A Permit is intended to authorize constrained execution.

An Artifact is intended to remain as evidence after the decision and execution lifecycle.

Therefore:

```
Permit
may expire or be consumed

while

Admission Artifact
is retained for reconstruction
```

Evidence retention should preserve enough material to verify the historical governance state without requiring trust in mutable narrative records.

#### Lifecycle Dependency

The overall lifecycle can be summarized as:

```
Authority Created
        ↓
Authorized Intent Bound
        ↓
Task Evolves
        ↓
Execution Intent Formed
        ↓
Objects Validated
        ↓
Admission Decision
        ↓
ADMIT
        ↓
Permit Minted
        ↓
Permit Verified
        ↓
Permit Consumed / Expires
        ↓
Execution
        ↓
Artifact Retained
```

At any relevant point:

```
Revocation
Expiry
Material Mutation
Scope Change
Intent Mismatch
```

may invalidate the assumption that earlier governance remains sufficient.

***

### Governance Object Boundary Summary

The canonical objects now have distinct responsibilities.

#### Authority Object

```
What legitimate authority existed?
```

#### Human-Authorized Intent

```
What did that authority actually authorize?
```

#### Authority–Intent Binding

```
Which authority is bound to which authorized meaning?
```

#### Canonical Intent Commitment

```
What semantic commitment must the evolving trajectory preserve?
```

#### Execution Intent

```
What concrete action is being proposed now?
```

#### Execution Permit

```
What constrained execution is allowed now?
```

#### Admission Artifact

```
Why was this admission decision made,
and what governance state supports that conclusion?
```

The key negative relationships are equally important:

```
Authority Object
≠
Execution Permit
```

```
Authority
≠
Intent
```

```
Human-Authorized Intent
≠
Raw Prompt
```

```
Execution Intent
≠
Authority
```

```
Permit
≠
Legitimacy Source
```

```
Admission Artifact
≠
Authority
```

And the complete governance direction remains:

> **Authority → Intent → Admission → Permit → Execution → Evidence**

The next chapter moves from governance objects to the kernel that evaluates them:

## 5. LPP Admission Kernel

The next question is:

> **How does the Layer 0 Admission Kernel validate authority, scope, lifecycle, revocation, delegation, consequence class, and other mandatory predicates—and how does it produce ADMIT, DENY, DEFER, or COLLAPSE?**