> 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/6.-intent-and-trajectory-governance/6.13-svnn-boundaries.md).

# 6.13 SVNN Boundaries

The authority boundary of SVNN must remain 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.**

#### SVNN Does Not Create Authority

Suppose:

```
AO = absent
```

Even unanimous SVNN agreement cannot transform this into:

```
AO = valid
```

Therefore:

```
Consensus
⇏
Authority
```

#### SVNN Does Not Mint Authority Objects

Authority Objects must originate through their applicable legitimate authority process.

Verification nodes may verify or contribute evidence about an Authority Object.

They do not become the original authority issuer merely by verifying it.

#### SVNN Does Not Issue Execution Permits

Execution Permit minting remains downstream of an `ADMIT` decision by the appropriate Admission Kernel / Control Plane path.

```
SVNN Evidence
        ↓
Admission Kernel
        ↓
ADMIT
        ↓
Execution Permit
```

not:

```
SVNN Consensus
        ↓
Execution Permit
```

#### SVNN Does Not Independently Return ADMIT

Semantic agreement is only one dimension of admissibility.

An action may receive strong semantic support while:

* authority is revoked,
* scope is invalid,
* a required signature is missing,
* consequence requirements are unmet,
* or another mandatory predicate fails.

Therefore:

```
SVNN PASS
≠
LPP ADMIT
```

#### SVNN Cannot Override Deterministic Predicates

This is one of the most important boundaries.

Suppose:

```
AuthorityRevoked = TRUE
```

A high semantic-consensus score cannot compensate.

Likewise:

```
ScopeValid = FALSE
```

cannot become valid because many validators believe the action is useful.

The architecture remains:

```
Deterministic mandatory predicates
        +
Verification evidence
        ↓
Admission Kernel
```

not:

```
Consensus score
        ↓
override everything
```

#### SVNN Does Not Replace the Admission Kernel

SVNN answers:

> **What independent verification evidence exists?**

The Admission Kernel answers:

> **Given authority, intent, scope, lifecycle, revocation, consequence, verification evidence, and applicable invariants, is this action constitutionally admissible?**

Those questions are different.

#### Canonical Boundary

The relationship can be compressed into:

```
SVNN
=
Verification Evidence Layer
```

```
LPP Admission Kernel
=
Constitutional Decision Layer
```

And therefore:

> **Evidence may strengthen legitimacy claims. Evidence does not create legitimacy where mandatory authority conditions do not exist.**

***

### Intent & Trajectory Governance Summary

Trajectory governance addresses the gap between:

```
The action was initially authorized.
```

and:

```
The action still represents
what was authorized now.
```

The canonical sequence is:

```
Authority Object
        +
Human Intent H
        ↓
Authority–Intent Binding
        ↓
Agent / Task Trajectory
        ↓
Canonical Intent Commitment
        ↓
Semantic Verification
        ↓
MATCH
CONTESTED
MISMATCH
UNVERIFIABLE
        ↓
Material Mutation?
        ↓
Mandatory Re-Admission
        ↓
LPP Admission Kernel
```

The chapter establishes five critical principles:

```
AuthorityValid
⇏
IntentPreserved
```

```
Semantic MATCH
⇏
ADMIT
```

```
Material Mutation
⇒
Re-Admission
```

```
LocalPlausible
⇏
TrajectoryAdmissible
```

```
SVNN Evidence
≠
Authority
```

The result is a Layer 0 model that does not evaluate only isolated tool calls.

It evaluates whether legitimate authority and authorized meaning survive the path from original intent to consequential execution.

The next chapter moves outward from LPP itself to the broader governance architecture surrounding it:

## 7. Mind Universe Governance Stack

The next question is:

> **How do SourceMind, FaithLocked, Jarvis, TaskChain, ActuMind, ResidentMode, NateLog, and ChainRecord govern the upstream path that forms an Action Candidate before LPP makes the final Layer 0 admissibility decision?**