Human–Institutional Responsibility Across the Consequence Chain: Review Admissibility, Capacity Boundaries, Ownership Integrity, and Contestability in High-Consequence and Decision-Bearing Systems

This release is a separate doctrinal specification related to the canonical baseline publication of the Applicability Boundary Doctrine, the earlier doctrinal extension on observation validity, interpretation cutoff, and bounded reality verification, the separate doctrinal specification on epistemic applicability, the separate doctrinal specification on reality verification, the separate doctrinal specification on approval-execution separation, and the separate doctrinal specification on substrate integrity. This record should be read alongside the canonical Applicability Boundary Doctrine, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19425317, the earlier related doctrinal extension, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19443895, the separate doctrinal specification on epistemic applicability, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19447536, the separate doctrinal specification on reality verification, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19457414, the separate doctrinal specification on approval-execution separation, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19462291, and the separate doctrinal specification on substrate integrity, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19463230.It is a separate record and not a version of any prior publication. It formalizes an orthogonal doctrinal question within the same authored framework: when does the human and institutional contour of a system cease to remain sufficiently real, current, competent, visible, and capable for responsibility to retain standing across the consequence chain? This release should be understood as orthogonal to substrate integrity, observation validity, epistemic applicability, reality verification, approval-execution separation, the applicability boundary, and continuation legitimacy. In doctrinal order, those machine-side and consequence-side conditions remain sequential; the human–institutional contour remains an orthogonal admissibility dimension across all of them. The release focuses on high-consequence and decision-bearing systems in which a system may remain formally governed and procedurally reviewed while responsibility has already become decorative because review lacks current authority, sufficient evidence visibility, competence, capacity, escalation rights, or contestability. Its purpose is doctrinal and analytical. It is intended as a citable public reference for continued work on:- human-institutional responsibility contour- review admissibility- capacity boundary- competence sufficiency- primary ownership integrity- escalation and refusal standing- affected-party contestability- orthogonal admissibility across the consequence chain This release deepens the authored doctrinal framework. It does not replace the canonical baseline publication, the earlier doctrinal extension, or the separate doctrinal specifications on epistemic applicability, reality verification, approval-execution separation, and substrate integrity. It has independent citation value as a separate doctrinal specification within the same authored framework. No implementation guidance is provided in this release. No executable architecture, runtime enforcement design, staffing model, governance platform, workflow software, escalation tooling, training system, organizational design, cryptographic protocol, operational procedure, algorithmic method, deployment pattern, or integration recipe is disclosed. The publication is limited to doctrinal articulation, evidentiary framing, legitimacy analysis, and boundary clarification. Derivative interpretation, structurally similar reframing, internal reconstruction, selective reuse, or downstream implementation based on this release does not inherit authorship, originality, canonical standing, or independent evidentiary standing. No patent license or implied commercial implementation right is granted by this release. Commercial implementation, operational integration, productization, assurance packaging, certification use, or other consequence-bearing application of the framework requires separate written permission or license from the author unless independently established without reliance on this authored framework. This release should be read alongside the canonical baseline doctrine, the earlier related doctrinal extension, and the separate doctrinal specifications on epistemic applicability, reality verification, approval-execution separation, and substrate integrity, not as a substitute for any of them. Earlier public materials, the canonical baseline publication, the earlier doctrinal extension, the separate doctrinal specifications on epistemic applicability, reality verification, approval-execution separation, and substrate integrity, and independently timestamped records support continuity of authorship and development history.