Research Scope

This research examines a narrowly defined procedural question:

How is authority resolved at the moment immediately before action, and how does that resolution determine whether action may lawfully proceed.

The inquiry is limited to admissibility at decision-time. It does not assess the merits of decisions, the desirability of outcomes, or the effectiveness of actions. It isolates the temporal boundary at which authority must be resolved in order for action to be permitted.

Scope of inquiry

• Authority is treated as a condition, not a role, status, or source of power.
• Action is treated as an act that produces effect and therefore requires permission prior to execution.
• Time functions as the organising variable that links authority to action at a precise decision-time boundary.

What is examined

• The distinction between admissibility (whether action may proceed) and evaluation (how action is later judged).
• The requirement that authority be resolved before execution, rather than inferred after the fact.
• The legal character of restraint, including HOLD as lawful non-action when pre-requisites are not evidenced.

What is excluded

• No analysis of outcomes, proportionality, optimisation, or risk appetite.
• No prescriptions for governance, compliance, or operational design.
• No institutional mandates, jurisdictional rules, or implementation pathways.

The research remains neutral as to values and policy choices. Its contribution is procedural: clarifying the timing and resolution of authority as a prerequisite for lawful action.

All meaning is governed by authoritative textual artefacts recorded in the SHA-256 Registry (append-only). Rendered views are explanatory only.