Admissible_Physical_Explanation

This paper characterizes what counts as a physical explanation under admissibility and standing conservation. It shows that explanation is not an open-ended constructive activity but a constrained classificatory act: an explanation is admissible only if it preserves standing and does not introduce illicit primitives, hidden parameters, or deferred repairs. By exhaustion, all non-admissible explanatory forms—causal surplus, probabilistic completion, ontic inflation, or post-hoc justification—are shown to fail closed. The result reframes physical explanation as a bounded descriptive practice within an already closed admissible interior, and places on record the conditions under which explanation remains legitimate without operationalizing any explanatory procedure.