> 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/7.-mind-universe-governance-stack/7.10-relationship-to-lpp.md). # 7.10 Relationship to LPP The relationship between Mind Universe and LPP can now be stated precisely. > **Jarvis governs tasks.** > **ActuMind evaluates action consequence and execution readiness.** > **LPP Admission Kernel determines constitutional admissibility.** This is the canonical division of authority. #### SourceMind SourceMind asks: > **Where did this information or evidence come from?** Produces: ``` Source / Provenance Evidence ``` It does not create authority. #### FaithLocked FaithLocked asks: > **Is the semantic environment sufficiently intact for governed task processing?** Produces or contributes: ``` Semantic Integrity State ``` It does not create constitutional legitimacy. #### Jarvis Jarvis asks: > **What task is actually being performed, how did it evolve, and which modules are responsible?** Produces: ``` Governed Task State TaskChain Action-Candidate Preparation ``` It does not mint Authority Objects or Execution Permits. #### TaskChain TaskChain asks: > **How did the current task and Action Candidate emerge?** Produces: ``` Task Traceability Error Traceability Repair Traceability ``` It does not determine admissibility. #### ActuMind ActuMind asks: > **What operational consequence would this action create, and is it ready to become an Action Candidate for further governance?** Produces: ``` Operational Risk / Readiness Evidence ``` It can restrict. It does not independently authorize execution. #### Semantic Verification / SVNN These ask: > **Does the evolved action still preserve authorized meaning, and what independent verification evidence supports that conclusion?** Produce: ``` Verification Evidence ``` They do not create authority. #### LPP Admission Kernel The LPP Admission Kernel asks: > **Given authority, authorized intent, scope, lifecycle state, revocation, consequence class, material mutation, verification evidence, and applicable invariants—is this action constitutionally admissible now?** Produces: ``` ADMIT DENY DEFER COLLAPSE ``` Only: ``` ADMIT ``` may lead to: ``` Execution Permit ``` #### Execution Plane The Execution Plane asks: > **Is there a valid Permit for this exact execution?** If yes, downstream execution may proceed subject to runtime controls. If no: ``` No Execution ``` #### Evidence Jarvis-level records and LPP Admission Artifacts preserve different parts of the governance chain. Together, an integrated architecture may reconstruct: ``` Source ↓ Semantic Processing ↓ Task Evolution ↓ Action Candidate ↓ Authority / Intent Evaluation ↓ Admission ↓ Permit ↓ Execution ↓ Evidence ``` *** ### Canonical Non-Substitution Rules The Mind Universe architecture depends on explicit authority boundaries. The following substitutions are invalid: ``` Trusted Source ≠ Authority ``` ``` FaithLocked PASS ≠ LPP ADMIT ``` ``` Valid TaskChain ≠ Authority ``` ``` Jarvis Decision ≠ Constitutional Admission ``` ``` AM-R0 ≠ Authorized ``` ``` ActuMind PASS ≠ Execution Authorization ``` ``` ResidentMode Clear ≠ Admissibility ``` ``` NateLog / ChainRecord ≠ Admission Artifact ``` ``` SVNN Consensus ≠ Authority ``` and most importantly: ``` Mind Universe ≠ LPP ``` The two are integrated but distinct. *** ### Historical Architecture Boundary Earlier Mind Universe and Jarvis materials reflect the system's development history. Those materials include older definitions in which: * LPP was described more broadly as a language-sovereignty or semantic-governance framework, * Jarvis used the name `Admission Kernel` for semantic statement intake, * ActuMind used T0–T3 classifications, * ActuMind appeared as a final execution-authorization layer, * and SVNN sometimes occupied a broader consensus or ledger role. GitBook v2.0 does not erase this development history. It normalizes it. The current canonical mapping is: ``` Legacy: Jarvis Admission Kernel ↓ Canonical: Semantic Admission Layer ``` ``` Legacy: ActuMind T0–T3 ↓ Canonical: ActuMind AM-R0–AM-R3 ``` ``` Legacy: ActuMind final authorization ↓ Canonical: Action Consequence & Execution-Readiness Governance ``` ``` Legacy: SVNN as authority / final consensus source ↓ Canonical: Verification Evidence Substrate ``` ``` Canonical LPP: T0–T4 Constitutional Consequence & Irreversibility ``` The formal Terminology Deprecation Map is provided later in the Appendix. Historical documents remain part of the project record. They do not override the current canonical definitions. *** ### Mind Universe Governance Stack Summary Mind Universe provides the broader governance architecture surrounding LPP. Its canonical upstream chain is: ``` SourceMind ↓ Source Provenance / Input Trust FaithLocked ↓ Semantic Integrity Jarvis / TaskChain ↓ Task Governance / Responsibility Continuity ActuMind ↓ Action Consequence / Execution Readiness Action Candidate ↓ Semantic Verification / SVNN Evidence LPP Admission Kernel ↓ Constitutional Admissibility Execution Permit ↓ Execution NateLog / ChainRecord / Admission Artifact ↓ Governance Reconstruction ``` The architecture therefore preserves a strict division of labor: > **SourceMind governs source.** > **FaithLocked governs semantic integrity.** > **Jarvis governs tasks.** > **TaskChain preserves task and responsibility continuity.** > **ActuMind evaluates action consequence and readiness.** > **SVNN provides verification evidence when required.** > **LPP Admission Kernel determines constitutional admissibility.** > **The Execution Plane executes only under applicable valid authorization.** This separation is what prevents governance from collapsing back into one opaque AI decision. The next chapter moves from subsystem responsibilities to the adversarial and enforcement properties that protect these boundaries: ## 8. Security & Enforcement The next question is: > **How are authority, scope, Permit integrity, revocation, replay resistance, CP / EP separation, continuous admissibility, Anti-SCSP, and evidence verification protected against bypass?**