SAFE-Matter™ Constitutional Inadmissibility Conditions Framework: Runtime Conditions Under Which Execution Legitimacy Fails

SAFE-Matter™ Constitutional Inadmissibility Conditions Framework formalises the runtime conditions under which execution authority becomes constitutionally inadmissible within life-critical and high-consequence operational systems. The paper establishes explicit inadmissibility conditions governing whether consequential execution may legitimately continue under present-state runtime conditions. Unlike conventional governance systems, which frequently inherit operational legitimacy forward from historical approval, certification, policy alignment, or procedural continuity, SAFE-Matter™ continuously evaluates whether sufficient independently verifiable evidence exists to constitutionally permit execution at the exact moment reliance occurs. The document defines operational inadmissibility conditions including insufficient evidence, stale evidence, conflicting evidence, unverifiable evidence, dependency collapse, replayed evidence, continuity break, timing drift, unauthorised override, spoofed telemetry, and unknown-state persistence. The framework distinguishes between operational functionality and operational legitimacy, establishing that execution authority may collapse even where systems remain technically operational if admissible present-state evidence can no longer be sufficiently established. This paper forms part of the SAFE-Matter™ runtime constitutional governance doctrine governing admissibility at execution, deterministic enforcement, and present-state operational legitimacy.