G_1 Explanation Has No Legitimacy Standing

This paper establishes that explanation, as such, does not carry independent legitimacy standing within an admissible system. Under standing conservation and fail-closed evaluation, explanatory success, intuitiveness, or narrative coherence cannot generate, transfer, or repair legitimacy. By exhaustion, any framework that treats explanation as a legitimizing act—whether causal, probabilistic, or semantic—is shown to collapse into inadmissibility. The result is purely negative and structural: it records that explanation is a derivative descriptive convenience, not a source of standing. The analysis is declarative and non-procedural, avoiding any explanatory techniques, validation methods, or operational criteria.