Restriction Reflection Is Strictly Stronger Than SND

This paper proves that restriction–reflection is strictly stronger than SND. It shows that enforcing admissibility by restriction (fail-closed exclusion of illicit moves) together with reflection (standing-preserving redescription constraints) rules out cases that SND alone cannot eliminate. By exhaustion, any regime satisfying SND but lacking restriction–reflection permits covert scope transport, silent redescription, or deferred admissibility. The result establishes a strict strength ordering between the principles without introducing constructions or procedures. No algorithms, tests, or implementation guidance are provided; the argument is necessity-based and eliminative.