Paper 3.5ζ: Empirical Boundary Qualification of Human Authorization and Consequential Execution: From Preserved Uncertainty to Enforced Institutional Authority

This paper presents an evidence-bound framework for empirically qualifying the boundary between institutional human authorization and consequential runtime execution. Paper 3.5ζ is positioned between Paper 3.5β, which specifies institutional and authorization boundaries, and Paper 4, which addresses origin propagation and transformation-aware provenance. The paper distinguishes four authorization assurance properties: Authorization Existence (A_E), Authorization Validity (A_V), Authorization Reachability (A_R), and Authorization Enforcement (A_F). These properties are ordered by increasing assurance requirements without being treated as logical implications. A central contribution is the formulation of a target runtime invariant: consequential execution must not occur unless the applicable authorization has been verified for the relevant action, scope, context, and time. The invariant is explicitly defined as a target governance property and is not presented as evidence that the historically examined runtime already satisfied it. The methodology separates evidence scope, reconstruction rules, and claim status. It distinguishes observed evidence, reconstructed findings, verified findings, and non-establishment within a defined scope. In particular, Pending Source Binding is not treated as equivalent to Not Established. The R04 investigation is represented through Human Gate findings HG-01 through HG-03 and the architectural authorization-reachability claim AR-01. Their authoritative evidence identifiers and normative statuses are governed by Appendix B, which serves as the manuscript's sole normative claim-status and evidence-source register. The paper further establishes a structural distinction between institutional authority and runtime enforcement. Governance is considered effective only when institutional authority is structurally connected to an enforceable runtime constraint and supported by corresponding evidence. Provenance uncertainty is deliberately preserved. Phase closure and existing provenance artifacts are not treated as proof of complete provenance traceability. Origin propagation, transformation, and transformation-aware provenance are therefore handed forward to Paper 4. The resulting boundary is expressed as: Human Authority → Bound Authorization → Reachable Verification → Enforcement → Consequential Execution. The paper's central objective is to qualify, without speculative completion, whether institutional authorization can reach and constrain consequential runtime execution.