SAFE-Matter™: The Constitutional Revocation of Authority — Runtime Conditions Under Which Consequential Systems Lose the Right to Continue

This paper establishes the constitutional conditions under which operational authority ceases to remain admissible within consequence-bearing systems. Traditional governance architectures commonly assume that authority, once legitimately established, persists until visible failure, incident escalation, policy intervention, or retrospective investigation forces reconsideration. SAFE-Matter rejects this assumption.The framework formalises constitutional revocation as a present-state governance condition arising whenever the evidential basis required to justify continued execution can no longer be sufficiently established. Under this model, authority is not withdrawn because failure has occurred; authority is withdrawn because the conditions required to justify continuation no longer remain constitutionally admissible.The paper defines the distinction between operational functionality and operational legitimacy, establishes the runtime conditions under which continuation authority collapses, and demonstrates how evidential insufficiency, dependency invalidation, governance failure, temporal evidence decay, environmental inadmissibility, and unresolved uncertainty may trigger constitutional revocation.SAFE-Matter therefore repositions revocation from a retrospective administrative response to failure into a runtime constitutional mechanism governing whether systems retain the right to continue acting under present-state conditions of reliance.