An interface is not legitimate just because it works, is useful, is popular, is efficient, or creates value. It remains legitimate only while affected nodes can audit it, consent to it, revoke or revise coupling, verify compatibility, and obtain repair when it causes harm.

1. Formal Definition

The Interface Legitimacy Law states that interface usefulness does not prove interface legitimacy.

An interface is any boundary-crossing structure through which systems interact. Interfaces include software interfaces, AI chat systems, APIs, contracts, dashboards, forms, policies, institutions, governance pathways, moderation systems, medical intake processes, economic platforms, social rituals, identity systems, reporting systems, surveillance channels, complaint pathways, and human-machine interaction layers.

Interfaces create coupling. They decide what passes, what is blocked, what is classified, what is remembered, what is acted on, what is ignored, what is made visible, what is hidden, and what repair paths exist.

An interface may be useful while still being illegitimate. Usefulness measures function. Legitimacy measures whether the interface preserves coherence conditions under time, pressure, coupling, consent, audit, and repair.

For an interface to remain legitimate, it must remain:

Continuously auditable
Revocably consented
Compatibility-verified
Restoration-capable

If any of these fail, interface legitimacy begins to degrade, even if the interface continues to produce value.

2. Canonical Form

Core form:

textScroll

Interface legitimacy ⇔ Au_continuous + Consent_revocable + Λ_verified + R_available

Expanded canonical form:

textScroll

an interface remains legitimate only while auditability, revocable consent, compatibility verification, and restoration capacity remain active through time

Failure expression:

textScroll

interface usefulness ≠ interface legitimacy

Instability form:

textScroll

useful interface + Au↓ / consent collapse / Λ failure / R=0 ⇒ pseudo-legitimacy / H↑

Related variables:

textScroll

O, H, ε, ι, Au, R, BΣ, K, µᵢ, Φ, Λ, ⊗, Γ, Π, Θ, Σ, Ψ, Τ, FI

Where:

TableScroll

Variable	Meaning in this law
`Interface`	Boundary-crossing structure enabling interaction, classification, access, exchange, or representation
`Au_continuous`	Interface remains inspectable over time, not merely at launch
`Consent_revocable`	Affected nodes can refuse, revoke, revise, or exit interface coupling
`Λ_verified`	Compatibility between interface and affected-node/system state is checked and maintained
`R_available`	Repair path exists when interface causes harm, mismatch, or invalid coupling
`BΣ`	Boundary integrity preserved by the interface
`K / σ`	Slack / sovereignty required for meaningful consent and revocation
`⊗`	Coupling produced by the interface
`Σ`	Scope and boundary conditions of interface operation
`Γ`	Classification performed by or through the interface
`Π`	Rules, constraints, permissions, controls, or actions routed through the interface
`FI`	Feedback integrity required for interface correction
`Ψ`	Affected-node and field feedback about interface effects
`Τ`	Time validation of ongoing legitimacy
`µᵢ`	Meaning / agent integrity affected by interface representation and classification
`Φ`	Usefulness or success proxy; insufficient proof of legitimacy
`O`	Coherence; the interface must preserve or improve it
`H`	Hidden debt produced by illegitimate interface coupling
`ι / Ξ`	Inversion when usefulness, adoption, or efficiency is treated as legitimacy

3. Core Mechanism

The Interface Legitimacy Law unfolds whenever a system uses an interface to mediate coupling.

Legitimate interface pathway

textScroll

interface is introduced
→ scope and coupling are clear
→ compatibility is verified
→ consent is valid and revocable
→ auditability remains continuous
→ feedback can correct the interface
→ repair path exists
→ legitimacy is time-validated

Illegitimate interface pathway

textScroll

interface is introduced
→ usefulness rises
→ adoption grows
→ scope expands
→ auditability weakens
→ consent becomes sticky or non-revocable
→ compatibility assumptions go stale
→ repair is unavailable
→ hidden debt accumulates

The core mechanism is:

textScroll

interfaces mediate power, classification, memory, access, and repair; therefore usefulness alone cannot certify legitimacy

An interface can become more useful and less legitimate at the same time if it deepens coupling while weakening audit, consent, compatibility, or restoration.

4. When This Law Applies

This law applies whenever a system uses an interface to connect, govern, classify, represent, mediate, automate, exchange, constrain, surveil, route, filter, moderate, store, decide, contract, or repair.

It is especially important in:

AI chat interfaces;
AI memory systems;
AI agents and tool use;
platform terms and consent flows;
APIs;
dashboards;
moderation systems;
complaint pathways;
governance portals;
medical intake systems;
legal forms;
employment processes;
surveillance systems;
data-sharing agreements;
identity systems;
payment systems;
marketplaces;
social media systems;
educational platforms;
security interfaces;
restoration processes;
public participation systems.

The law applies strongly when:

textScroll

interface adoption or usefulness is treated as legitimacy proof

or when:

textScroll

an interface deepens coupling while auditability, revocability, compatibility, or repair remains weak

Typical domains:

TableScroll

Domain	Interface Legitimacy Expression
AI systems	AI interfaces require auditability, revocable memory/agency, compatibility verification, and repair
Security	security controls must remain auditable, scoped, reversible, and repair-capable
Governance	participation interfaces must be able to alter outcomes and repair harm
Economy	platforms and contracts must preserve exit, audit, compatibility, and restoration
Medicine	care interfaces must fit patient state, consent, review, and repair conditions
Institutions	forms and pathways must not create unauditable burden or invalid consent
Media systems	recommendation and engagement interfaces must preserve meaning and feedback integrity
Culture	symbolic or ritual interfaces must preserve boundary, meaning, and consent

5. When This Law Does Not Apply

This law should not be used to reject interfaces because they are imperfect.

No interface is complete. Interfaces simplify, classify, route, and constrain. A coherent interface can remain legitimate even if it has limits, provided those limits are auditable, scoped, corrigible, consented, and repairable.

This law does not imply:

every interface must expose every internal detail;
every user must approve every design choice;
every error invalidates legitimacy;
every interface must be equally compatible with all contexts;
all friction is illegitimate;
all constraints are coercive;
usefulness is irrelevant.

Interface legitimacy can remain intact when:

limitations are clear;
scope is honest;
audit pathways exist;
consent can be revoked or revised;
compatibility is tested and updated;
errors route into repair;
affected-node feedback can change the interface;
hidden coupling is minimized;
exit remains possible.

False-positive cases:

TableScroll

Case	Why it is not interface illegitimacy
An API limits access but documents scope and supports revocation	Constraint is auditable and scoped
An AI memory interface stores only user-approved items with review/delete pathways	Consent remains revocable
A medical intake form is incomplete but routes complex cases to human review	Interface limits are compensated
A moderation interface blocks harmful material with appeal and audit	Control remains reviewable
A platform changes scope and requires renewed consent	Scope change is not hidden

Important distinction:

Interfaces do not need perfection. They need legitimacy-preserving correction.

6. Diagnostic Signature

Canonical diagnostic:

textScroll

Interface legitimacy ⇔ Au_continuous + Consent_revocable + Λ_verified + R_available

Warning signature:

textScroll

usefulness↑
coupling depth↑
Au↓
revocation hard
compatibility assumed
R absent
H↑
⇒ interface pseudo-legitimacy

Common indicators:

TableScroll

Diagnostic	Expected movement	Interpretation
`Au_continuous`	stable / ↑	Interface can be inspected over time
`Consent_revocable`	present	Affected nodes can revise, refuse, delete, or exit
`Λ_verified`	maintained	Compatibility remains tested, not assumed
`R_available`	present	Repair exists for harm or mismatch
`BΣ`	intact	Boundaries remain protected
`K / σ`	sufficient	Consent and revocation are meaningful
`⊗ depth`	monitored	Coupling depth remains proportional to legitimacy
`Σ`	clear	Interface scope is legible
`FI`	intact	Feedback can correct the interface
`Φ`	not sufficient	Usefulness does not prove legitimacy
`H`	↓ / stable	Interface does not accumulate hidden debt
`ι / Ξ`	low	Adoption is not mistaken for legitimacy

Additional diagnostics:

TableScroll

Diagnostic	Use
Interface Legitimacy	Primary diagnostic
Effective Auditability	Tests continuous inspectability
Revocable Consent	Tests refusal, deletion, revision, exit
Compatibility	Tests whether interface fits state/context
Restoration Capacity	Tests repair availability
Boundary Integrity	Tests membrane effects
Scope Clarity	Detects hidden expansion
Feedback Integrity	Determines whether interface can learn
Exit Permission	Tests controlled decoupling
Hidden Debt	Tracks interface harm and burden
Inversion Index	Detects usefulness-as-legitimacy
Coherence Trajectory	Tests interface effect on `O`

7. Failure Pattern

If ignored, this law produces useful but illegitimate interfaces.

General failure pathway:

textScroll

interface becomes useful
→ adoption grows
→ coupling deepens
→ usefulness is treated as legitimacy
→ auditability falls
→ consent becomes hard to revoke
→ compatibility assumptions become stale
→ repair pathways are weak
→ hidden debt accumulates
→ legitimacy shock appears later

Common failure modes:

Interface Illegitimacy — interface fails audit, consent, compatibility, or restoration requirements.
Useful but Illegitimate Interface — interface creates value while violating coherence conditions.
Auditability Collapse — affected nodes cannot inspect interface effects.
Consent Collapse — use becomes sticky, coerced, bundled, or non-revocable.
Compatibility Failure — interface no longer fits affected-node state or context.
Restoration Absence — harm routes into no repair path.
Boundary Violation — interface crosses membranes without valid scope.
Scope Creep — interface expands beyond consented or auditable use.
Irrevocable Coupling — exit or rollback becomes impossible.
Silent Extraction — interface extracts data, labor, attention, agency, or trust without legibility.
Pseudo-Legitimacy — adoption or usefulness is treated as legitimacy.
Legitimacy Shock — interface debt becomes visible under challenge.

Compact failure signature:

textScroll

usefulness↑ + legitimacy stack↓ ⇒ pseudo-legitimate interface

8. Restoration Implications

Restoration requires repairing the interface legitimacy stack, not merely improving usability.

The first restoration question is not:

textScroll

Is the interface useful?

The first restoration question is:

textScroll

Can affected nodes audit it, revoke consent, verify compatibility, and obtain repair?

Restoration priorities:

Identify the interface and coupling depth.
Audit scope and hidden coupling.
Restore continuous auditability.
Restore revocable consent.
Verify compatibility across affected contexts.
Build repair and restoration paths.
Restore boundary integrity.
Restore feedback integrity.
Reduce or decouple illegitimate interface functions.
Time-validate legitimacy under use, stress, and change.

Relevant restoration arcs:

TableScroll

Restoration Arc	Why it applies
Interface Legitimacy Restoration	Primary restoration need
Auditability Restoration	Interface effects must be inspectable
Boundary Reconstitution	Interfaces operate through membranes
Controlled Decoupling	Illegitimate coupling may need reduction
Restoration Capacity Rebuild	Harm requires repair pathways
Origin-Layer Repair	Interface design failure must be repaired at source
Temporal Validation	Legitimacy must persist over time
Recurrence Reduction	Interface failures must not repeat
Basin Supersession	Required when illegitimate interface is core basin

Minimal restoration sequence:

textScroll

identify interface
→ map ⊗ and scope
→ restore Au
→ restore revocable consent / exit
→ verify Λ
→ add R
→ repair BΣ and FI
→ reduce hidden debt
→ validate legitimacy over time

Temporal validation requirement:

textScroll

Au_continuous↑
consent remains revocable
Λ verified over time
R available and used
BΣ intact
FI intact
exit possible
H↓
recurrence↓
O stable or rising
usefulness remains subordinate to legitimacy

9. Design Rule

Do not treat interface usefulness as interface legitimacy.

Operational design requirements:

Design auditability into the interface.
Design revocation and exit before deep coupling.
Verify compatibility before and during use.
Include repair pathways.
Preserve boundary integrity.
Make scope legible.
Detect and prevent hidden coupling.
Preserve feedback channels from affected nodes.
Re-consent after scope changes.
Time-validate interface legitimacy under stress.
Keep adoption metrics subordinate to coherence.

Avoid:

equating adoption with legitimacy;
equating usefulness with consent;
bundling consent into dependency;
making exit punitive or impossible;
hiding scope expansion;
creating interfaces no one can audit;
using popularity to avoid repair;
treating user adaptation as compatibility proof;
treating frictionless use as coherence;
scaling interfaces before restoration paths exist.

10. Cross-Scale Expressions

TableScroll

Scale / Layer	Expression of the Law
U0 — Substrate	physical interfaces must preserve material compatibility and repair
U1 — Energy / capacity	interfaces must not impose unabsorbable burden
U2 — Boundary / interface	primary layer; interfaces are membrane structures
U3 — Process / execution	process interfaces route action and responsibility
U4 — Classification / claim	interfaces classify users, cases, permissions, and signals
U5 — Time / delay	legitimacy must persist after repeated use and scope change
U6 — Field effect	affected-node outcomes reveal interface legitimacy
U7 — Recurrence / memory	repeated interface harm creates basin memory
U8 — Environment / forcing	environmental pressure tests interface validity

11. Examples

Example A — AI Memory Interface

Scenario:

An AI memory feature is useful because it personalizes responses, but the user cannot easily audit stored memory, revise it, delete it, understand how it affects outputs, or repair harm from misremembering.

Law expression:

textScroll

memory usefulness↑ while Au↓ / revocation weak ⇒ interface illegitimacy

Interpretation:

AI memory requires continuous auditability and revocable consent.

Example B — AI Agent Tool Interface

Scenario:

An AI agent can act in email, files, code, or finance. It is useful, but tool actions are hard to trace, scope is unclear, and rollback is absent.

Law expression:

textScroll

tool interface ⊗ depth↑ without Au + R ⇒ H↑

Interpretation:

Agent usefulness does not prove legitimate tool coupling.

Scenario:

A platform bundles consent into use. Refusal prevents access to essential functions, and revocation is difficult.

Law expression:

textScroll

consent not revocable ⇒ interface legitimacy failure

Interpretation:

Consent must remain structurally valid, not merely clicked.

Example D — Institutional Complaint Portal

Scenario:

An institution offers a complaint portal. The portal accepts complaints, but users cannot track outcomes, appeal decisions, or obtain repair.

Law expression:

textScroll

complaint interface useful for intake but R=0 ⇒ pseudo-legitimacy

Interpretation:

An intake interface is not legitimate if it cannot route into repair.

Example E — Medical Intake Form

Scenario:

A patient’s complex condition is forced through a narrow form. The form is efficient for the institution but incompatible with patient-state variety.

Law expression:

textScroll

Λ_form ≤ 0 for complex case ⇒ interface compatibility failure

Interpretation:

Administrative efficiency cannot substitute for compatibility.

Example F — Security Dashboard

Scenario:

A dashboard gives useful status indicators, but hides uncertainty, alert suppression, and unreviewed anomalies.

Law expression:

textScroll

Φ_dashboard↑ while Au_field↓ ⇒ interface pseudo-legitimacy

Interpretation:

Security interfaces must preserve auditability, not only legible status.

12. Relationship to Nearby Laws

TableScroll

Related Law	Relationship
LAW-013 — Auditability-Debt Law	Interfaces that cannot be audited issue debt
LAW-015 — Suppressed Auditability Debt Law	Hidden interface behavior creates debt
LAW-017 — Silent Extraction Law	Illegitimate interfaces can extract invisibly
LAW-030 — Slack Sovereignty Law	Revocation and consent require slack
LAW-031 — Observability Collapse Law	Interfaces can hide causal pathways
LAW-039 — Identity-Binding Hard Rule	Interfaces must not bind identity from low-information signals
LAW-040 — Filtering Law	Filtering interfaces must attenuate without deleting trace
LAW-041 — Boundary Membrane Law	Interfaces are selective membranes
LAW-042 — Consent Structurality Law	Consent must remain boundary-state valid
LAW-043 — Safe Coupling Law	Interfaces create coupling and require compatibility, scope, and audit
LAW-044 — Coupling Gradient Law	Interface depth must match shared invariants
LAW-045 — Force Debt Law	Interface enforcement creates debt unless repaired
LAW-046 — Contract Validity Law	Contracts are interface/coupling artifacts
LAW-047 — Controlled Decoupling Law	Legitimate interfaces require exit paths
LAW-048 — Feedback Integrity Law	Interface feedback must remain corrective
LAW-049 — Feedback Without Slack Becomes Extraction Law	Interface feedback burden must be absorbable
LAW-050 — Control-Restoration Separation Law	Interface control is not restoration
LAW-054 — Measurement Back-Action Law	Interfaces that measure users change behavior
LAW-058 — Resource Gatekeeping Law	Access-gated interfaces can distort selection
LAW-059 — Talent Drift Law	Illegitimate participation interfaces drive talent migration
LAW-061 — Restoration Sequencing Law	Interface repair must be sequenced
LAW-064 — Restoration Debt Reduction Law	Interface restoration must reduce hidden debt
LAW-068 — Boundary-First Restoration Law	Boundary repair precedes interface recoupling
LAW-070 — Reintegration Membrane Law	Reintegration requires legitimate recoupling interface
LAW-088 — Empathy–Sovereignty Law	Empathic interfaces must preserve sovereignty
LAW-102 — Legitimacy Audit Law	Interface legitimacy must be auditable
LAW-109 — High-Φ Legitimacy Scaling Law	High-power interfaces require stronger legitimacy constraints
LAW-115 — Surveillance–Restoration Law	Observation interfaces must route into repair
LAW-128 — AI Representation Law	AI representation is a high-risk interface

Aliases folded into this law:

Interface Legitimacy Law
Useful Interface Is Not Legitimate Interface Law
Revocable Interface Law
Auditable Interface Law
Restoration-Capable Interface Law

Deduplication note:

This law should remain the root interface-legitimacy law. Boundary, consent, coupling, contract, and AI representation laws should reference it as the higher-level interface validity condition.

13. Operator Mapping

TableScroll

Operator	Role in this law
`Γ`	Classifies interface state, user state, permissions, and legitimacy
`Π`	Applies interface rules, constraints, actions, filters, or access decisions
`Ξ`	Represents inversion when usefulness is treated as legitimacy
`⊗`	Interface creates coupling between systems
`ℛ`	Repair path required for legitimacy
`Τ`	Time-validates ongoing legitimacy
`Θ`	Preserves uncertainty about compatibility and interface effects
`Σ`	Defines interface scope, boundary, and revocation path
`Ψ`	Affected-node and field feedback reveal interface effects
`Λ`	Compatibility verification required before and during interface coupling

Coherent operator sequence:

textScroll

Γ(interface state) → Σ(scope / boundary) → Λ(compatibility check) → Au(continuous audit) → consent_revocable → Π(interface action) → Ψ(feedback) → ℛ(repair) → Τ(validate legitimacy)

Inverted operator sequence:

textScroll

interface usefulness↑ → adoption↑ → Γ(legitimate assumed) → scope expands → Au↓ / consent sticky / Λ stale / R=0 → Ξ / ι↑ → H↑ → legitimacy shock

14. Machine-Readable Summary

yamlScroll

id: "LAW-060"
name: "Interface Legitimacy Law"
type: "law"
status: "draft"
family:
  - "Cybernetic and Meta-Theory Laws"
  - "Interactions, Signals, and Couplings"
summary: "An interface remains stable only if it is continuously auditable, revocably consented, compatibility-verified, and restoration-capable."
canonical_statement: "An interface remains stable only if it is continuously auditable, revocably consented, compatibility-verified, and restoration-capable."
core_form: "Interface legitimacy ⇔ Au_continuous + Consent_revocable + Λ_verified + R_available"
failure_form: "interface usefulness ≠ interface legitimacy"
instability_form: "useful interface + Au↓ / consent collapse / Λ failure / R=0 ⇒ pseudo-legitimacy / H↑"
variables:
  primary:
    - "Interface"
    - "Au_continuous"
    - "Consent_revocable"
    - "Λ_verified"
    - "R_available"
    - "BΣ"
    - "⊗"
    - "Σ"
    - "FI"
  secondary:
    - "O"
    - "H"
    - "ε"
    - "ι"
    - "K"
    - "σ"
    - "µᵢ"
    - "Φ"
    - "Γ"
    - "Π"
    - "Θ"
    - "Ψ"
    - "Τ"
diagnostics:
  - "Interface Legitimacy"
  - "Effective Auditability"
  - "Revocable Consent"
  - "Compatibility"
  - "Restoration Capacity"
  - "Boundary Integrity"
  - "Scope Clarity"
  - "Feedback Integrity"
  - "Exit Permission"
  - "Hidden Debt"
  - "Inversion Index"
  - "Coherence Trajectory"
failure_modes:
  - "Interface Illegitimacy"
  - "Useful but Illegitimate Interface"
  - "Auditability Collapse"
  - "Consent Collapse"
  - "Compatibility Failure"
  - "Restoration Absence"
  - "Boundary Violation"
  - "Scope Creep"
  - "Irrevocable Coupling"
  - "Silent Extraction"
  - "Pseudo-Legitimacy"
  - "Legitimacy Shock"
restoration_arcs:
  - "Interface Legitimacy Restoration"
  - "Auditability Restoration"
  - "Boundary Reconstitution"
  - "Controlled Decoupling"
  - "Restoration Capacity Rebuild"
  - "Origin-Layer Repair"
  - "Temporal Validation"
  - "Recurrence Reduction"
  - "Basin Supersession"
related_laws:
  - "LAW-013"
  - "LAW-015"
  - "LAW-017"
  - "LAW-030"
  - "LAW-031"
  - "LAW-039"
  - "LAW-040"
  - "LAW-041"
  - "LAW-042"
  - "LAW-043"
  - "LAW-044"
  - "LAW-045"
  - "LAW-046"
  - "LAW-047"
  - "LAW-048"
  - "LAW-049"
  - "LAW-050"
  - "LAW-054"
  - "LAW-058"
  - "LAW-059"
  - "LAW-061"
  - "LAW-064"
  - "LAW-068"
  - "LAW-070"
  - "LAW-088"
  - "LAW-102"
  - "LAW-109"
  - "LAW-115"
  - "LAW-128"
related_invariants:
  - "INV-001"
  - "INV-078"
operator_sequence:
  coherent:
    - "Γ interface state"
    - "Σ scope / boundary"
    - "Λ compatibility check"
    - "Au continuous audit"
    - "consent_revocable"
    - "Π interface action"
    - "Ψ feedback"
    - "ℛ repair"
    - "Τ validate legitimacy"
  inverted:
    - "interface usefulness↑"
    - "adoption↑"
    - "Γ legitimate assumed"
    - "scope expands"
    - "Au↓ / consent sticky / Λ stale / R=0"
    - "Ξ / ι↑"
    - "H↑"
    - "legitimacy shock"
aliases:
  - "Interface Legitimacy Law"
  - "Useful Interface Is Not Legitimate Interface Law"
  - "Revocable Interface Law"
  - "Auditable Interface Law"
  - "Restoration-Capable Interface Law"
deduplication_note: "Root interface-legitimacy law. Boundary, consent, coupling, contract, and AI representation laws should reference it as the higher-level interface validity condition."
source: "content/archive/laws/technical.md"

15. Compact Card Version

LAW-060 — Interface Legitimacy Law

An interface remains stable only if it is continuously auditable, revocably consented, compatibility-verified, and restoration-capable.

Core form:

textScroll

Interface legitimacy ⇔ Au_continuous + Consent_revocable + Λ_verified + R_available

Plain meaning:

Failure form:

textScroll

interface usefulness ≠ interface legitimacy

Instability form:

textScroll

useful interface + Au↓ / consent collapse / Λ failure / R=0 ⇒ pseudo-legitimacy / H↑

Primary variables:

Interface, Au_continuous, Consent_revocable, Λ_verified, R_available, BΣ, ⊗, Σ, FI, O, H, ι, K, µᵢ, Φ, Γ, Π, Θ, Ψ, Τ

Diagnostic signature:

Usefulness and coupling depth rise while auditability weakens, consent becomes sticky, compatibility is assumed rather than verified, repair is unavailable, and adoption is treated as legitimacy.

Failure risk:

Interface illegitimacy, useful but illegitimate interface, auditability collapse, consent collapse, compatibility failure, restoration absence, boundary violation, scope creep, irrevocable coupling, silent extraction, pseudo-legitimacy, legitimacy shock.

Restoration priority:

Map interface coupling and scope, restore continuous auditability, make consent revocable, verify compatibility, add restoration paths, repair boundaries and feedback integrity, reduce hidden debt, and time-validate legitimacy under use, stress, and change.

LAW-059 — Talent Drift Law

Registry

LAW-061 — Restoration Sequencing Law

LAW-060 — Interface Legitimacy Law

0. Plain Statement

1. Formal Definition

2. Canonical Form

3. Core Mechanism

Legitimate interface pathway

Illegitimate interface pathway

4. When This Law Applies

5. When This Law Does Not Apply

6. Diagnostic Signature

7. Failure Pattern

8. Restoration Implications

9. Design Rule

10. Cross-Scale Expressions

11. Examples

Example A — AI Memory Interface

Example B — AI Agent Tool Interface

Example C — Platform Consent Flow

Example D — Institutional Complaint Portal

Example E — Medical Intake Form

Example F — Security Dashboard

12. Relationship to Nearby Laws

13. Operator Mapping

14. Machine-Readable Summary

15. Compact Card Version

LAW-060 — Interface Legitimacy Law