F4 Why Certain Explanations Can Never Be Coherent

This paper identifies classes of explanation that are structurally incapable of coherence under admissibility and standing conservation. It shows, by exhaustion, that explanations relying on causal surplus, probabilistic completion, hidden mechanisms, or deferred grounding inevitably violate admissibility and fail closed. The result is negative and necessity-based: the paper does not propose alternative explanatory schemes but records which explanatory forms are impossible in principle. The analysis is declarative and non-procedural, placing on record the limits of explanation without introducing methods, workflows, or constructive guidance.