EAC cannot remain at the “site” level. Admissibility must be expressed at the claim level, bounded in time, and bounded within a perimeter.
Direct references: EAC: minimum doctrinal decisions · EAC doctrine · EAC definition
Why “source-level” admissibility is insufficient
The same source may contain strong assertions, interpretations, approximations, and time-sensitive elements. Saying “this source is admissible” is too coarse: it conflates different kinds of claims and creates a risk of implicit authority transfer.
The minimum public grammar
1) Claim-scoped
Admissibility applies to a claim (or a homogeneous family of claims), not to an entire domain. This forces doctrine to remain precise: what, exactly, does the authority apply to?
2) Time-scoped
An external authority that is admissible today may cease to be admissible tomorrow. Any admissibility must therefore be understandable as tied to a state, a version, or an interval.
3) Scope-bound
Admissibility must carry a perimeter: jurisdiction, sector, mode (open web, hybrid, agentic), or risk profile. Without a perimeter, authority becomes artificially universal.
EAC admissibility is claim-scoped, time-scoped, and scope-bound.
Detailed criteria and transitions remain private.
Why remaining non-operable is a strength
Publishing the grammar without publishing the protocol prevents two drifts: (1) opportunistic reproduction of authority triage, and (2) confusion between doctrine and recipe. Doctrine becomes more robust by remaining declarative.
Natural extensions
This grammar connects directly to authority boundary, authority conflict, and governed negation. EAC declares what may carry weight, and those layers handle what still needs to be arbitrated.
