0. Registry Classification

1. Purpose

1.1 What This Arc Repairs

Legitimacy Re-Anchoring repairs the civilization-scale condition where awareness injection, disclosure, interface exposure, institutional failure, public shock, intermediary control, or governance drift has damaged the field’s ability to distinguish legitimate authority from control, spectacle, secrecy, capture, or narrative management.

It applies when public confidence, institutional trust, authority recognition, evidence custody, responsibility gradients, or repair credibility become unstable after truth begins entering the field.

This arc repairs legitimacy volatility by:

• relocating legitimacy from status, secrecy, control, institutional self-certification, or narrative dominance into auditable truth and repair;
• clarifying who had authority, who exceeded authority, who benefited, who carried burden, and who must repair;
• making evidence custody and decision provenance traceable;
• preserving affected-field feedback as a legitimacy source;
• preventing public trust from being demanded before repair;
• creating appeal, correction, and review channels;
• reducing intermediary monopoly over interpretation;
• aligning authority with responsibility;
• validating over time that trust recovers through proof, not messaging.

Legitimacy Re-Anchoring is the canonical arc for rebuilding trust after civilization-scale interface exposure without returning legitimacy to the same unreviewed structures that produced the failure.

1.2 Core Restoration Function

This arc re-anchors legitimacy to auditable truth, responsibility, affected-field feedback, repair capacity, and future-compatible accountability.

Legitimacy is not restored by reassurance.

Legitimacy is restored when authority becomes reviewable, responsible, correctable, and repair-capable.

2. Use Conditions

2.1 When to Apply

Use this arc when:

• awareness injection has revealed interface risk, institutional failure, intermediary control, or public hidden debt;
• public trust is volatile, collapsing, polarized, or captured;
• authority claims are unclear, contested, or self-certified;
• institutions or platforms seek to preserve legitimacy through messaging rather than repair;
• evidence custody, decision provenance, or responsibility gradients are unclear;
• affected publics, users, communities, creators, workers, or downstream institutions lack credible correction or appeal channels;
• truth movement has begun but legitimacy has not yet been rebuilt;
• public confidence must be stabilized without suppressing truth;
• repair capacity must become visible before trust can recover;
• the field needs to distinguish valid authority from captured interface control.

Examples:

• an AI institution discloses policy, evaluator, memory, or model failure and must rebuild user trust through audit and repair;
• a platform reveals manipulation or moderation failure and must re-anchor legitimacy around appeal, transparency, and compensation;
• a public institution experiences trust shock after evidence of hidden interface control;
• a security body releases high-risk information and must clarify responsibility, evidence custody, and public protection;
• a governance process reveals that authority was exercised through unaccountable intermediaries;
• a media or cognitive infrastructure system loses public trust because awareness was staged, suppressed, or steered.

2.2 When Not to Apply

Do not apply this arc when:

• active harm requires Emergency Harm Stabilization first;
• awareness has not yet reached the field enough to identify legitimacy damage;
• the main issue is still containment or awareness transfer rather than trust repair;
• legitimacy re-anchoring is being used to demand trust without restitution;
• authority remains captured and must be bypassed or decoupled first;
• evidence custody is still unavailable and Audit Surface Expansion is required first;
• responsibility is unclear and Responsibility Gradient Mapping is required first;
• the system cannot provide correction, appeal, or repair channels;
• public trust is being treated as an asset to recover rather than a relationship earned through proof;
• the interface regime is non-restorable and must route to Supersession.

Legitimacy Re-Anchoring is invalid when it protects authority from accountability.

2.3 Required Preconditions

Before this arc begins, the following must be true:

If required preconditions fail:

Arc cannot validly proceed.

The system must route to Audit Surface Expansion, Truth and Causal Clarification, Responsibility Gradient Mapping, Governance-Level Restoration, Authority Registry Clarification, Signed Decision Provenance, or Interface Bypass & Decoupling.

3. Failure / Damage Signature

3.1 Pre-State Across S

3.2 Primary Failure Links

3.3 Origin-Layer Localization

Canon rule:

Legitimacy is re-anchored only when authority becomes auditable, responsibility becomes assigned, repair becomes visible, and affected-field confidence improves through proof over time.

4. Restoration Objective

4.1 Canonical Objective

Rebuild legitimacy by relocating authority to truth, responsibility, repair, affected-field feedback, and accountable governance.

Formal objective:

legitimacy_anchor_integrity ↑
public_trust_recovery ↑
authority_traceability ↑
responsibility_clarity ↑
repair_capacity_visibility ↑
affected_field_confidence ↑
intermediary_control_risk ↓
institutional_self_protection_pressure ↓
legitimacy_volatility ↓
accountability_continuity ↑
appeal_channel_integrity ↑
correction_channel_integrity ↑
consent_surface_integrity ↑
truth_repair_alignment ↑
H_public ↓
H_interface ↓
Au_eff ↑
FI ↑
BΣ ↑
𝓓 ↑
O_global ↑
recurrence ↓
Φ/O divergence ↓

Expanded objective:

Convert legitimacy shock into proof-based legitimacy by making authority traceable, responsibility assignable, repair visible, appeal functional, and affected-field confidence temporally validated.

4.2 Non-Goals

This arc does not aim to:

• restore institutional image;
• demand public trust;
• stabilize reputation without repair;
• bury evidence for confidence;
• reduce criticism without addressing cause;
• use apology as legitimacy restoration;
• treat official status as legitimacy;
• treat compliance as trust;
• protect intermediaries from accountability;
• force closure before repair;
• return to pre-exposure authority structure by default.

Legitimacy Re-Anchoring is not public relations. It is authority repair.

5. Operator Sequence

5.1 Minimal Operator Scaffold

Σ legitimacy-through-repair invariant → Au authority / evidence / responsibility trace → FI affected-field trust and correction feedback → BΣ appeal / consent / authority boundary repair → Π legitimacy anchor redesign → Θ volatility / self-protection attenuation → ℛ responsibility / repair / accountability routing → Λ legitimacy-validity gate → Τ trust proof

Specialized grammar alignment:

containment-first stabilization → asymmetric awareness injection → legitimacy re-anchoring → interface bypass and decoupling → inversion exhaustion / self-exposure → post-interface restoration

Universal grammar alignment:

Σ + Au + FI → BΣ + Π + Θ → ℛ → Λ → Τ

Legitimacy Re-Anchoring may route into Interface Bypass & Decoupling, Inversion Exposure and Reduction, Governance-Level Restoration, Responsibility Gradient Mapping, Future-Compatible Accountability, Victim-Centered Restoration, Supersession, or Post-Interface Restoration.

5.2 Operator Step Table

5.3 Sequence Notes

This arc is truth-gated, authority-gated, responsibility-gated, appeal-gated, affected-field-gated, repair-gated, and temporal-proof-gated.

The sequence must distinguish:

authority
status
legitimacy
trust
confidence
compliance
repair
accountability
public relations
narrative control

The following steps cannot be skipped:

authority trace
evidence custody review
responsibility assignment
affected-field feedback
appeal channel repair
correction channel repair
repair capacity visibility
institutional self-protection attenuation
temporal trust proof

If the public is asked to trust before repair, legitimacy is not re-anchored.

If authority remains untraceable, legitimacy remains provisional.

If appeal channels exist but cannot change outcomes, legitimacy repair is theatrical.

6. Restoration Phases

Phase 0 — Identify Legitimacy Damage

Purpose: Determine what legitimacy surface has failed.

Actions:

• identify trust shock;
• identify contested authority;
• identify evidence custody concerns;
• identify affected publics;
• identify institutional self-protection behavior;
• identify intermediary control;
• identify appeal or correction failure;
• identify responsibility ambiguity.

Validation:

legitimacy damage visible
authority drift identified
repair target defined

Phase 1 — Trace Authority and Evidence

Purpose: Make the legitimacy foundation reviewable.

Actions:

• trace who knew;
• trace who decided;
• trace who claimed authority;
• trace evidence custody;
• trace release decisions;
• trace policy or interface actions;
• trace who benefited;
• trace who carried burden;
• trace who can repair.

Validation:

authority_traceability ↑
evidence_integrity ↑
Au_eff ↑

Phase 2 — Map Responsibility Gradient

Purpose: Align authority with accountability.

Actions:

• identify direct actors;
• identify approving actors;
• identify benefiting actors;
• identify negligent actors;
• identify affected fields;
• identify repair obligations;
• identify future accountability obligations;
• prevent blame displacement.

Validation:

responsibility_clarity ↑
H_interface ↓
accountability path visible

Phase 3 — Restore Appeal and Correction Channels

Purpose: Let affected fields contest, correct, and participate.

Actions:

• create or repair appeal channel;
• create or repair correction channel;
• preserve public question surface;
• preserve independent review;
• preserve evidence challenge path;
• preserve redress path;
• preserve affected-field participation;
• publish correction rules where appropriate.

Validation:

appeal_channel_integrity ↑
correction_channel_integrity ↑
FI ↑

Phase 4 — Rebuild Legitimacy Anchor

Purpose: Replace status-based legitimacy with proof-based legitimacy.

Actions:

• define valid authority source;
• define oversight body;
• define evidence standard;
• define repair obligations;
• define accountability continuity;
• define consent or participation surface;
• define public reporting cadence;
• define limits on institutional self-certification.

Validation:

legitimacy_anchor_integrity ↑
truth_repair_alignment ↑
consent_surface_integrity ↑

Phase 5 — Attenuate Self-Protection and Volatility

Purpose: Prevent legitimacy repair from becoming narrative control.

Actions:

• reduce PR dominance;
• reduce secrecy pressure;
• reduce defensive messaging;
• reduce blame displacement;
• reduce public panic or cynicism;
• reduce intermediary monopoly;
• reduce appeal suppression;
• reduce premature closure pressure.

Validation:

institutional_self_protection_pressure ↓
legitimacy_volatility ↓
intermediary_control_risk ↓
𝓓 ↑

Phase 6 — Make Repair Capacity Visible

Purpose: Show the field what can actually be repaired.

Actions:

• publish repair pathways where appropriate;
• identify compensation or restitution routes;
• identify policy correction routes;
• identify governance redesign;
• identify affected-field supports;
• identify timelines and review windows;
• identify what cannot yet be repaired;
• preserve updates and accountability.

Validation:

repair_capacity_visibility ↑
affected_field_confidence ↑
H_public ↓

Phase 7 — Route to Bypass, Decoupling, or Post-Interface Repair

Purpose: Avoid restoring legitimacy to captured channels.

Actions:

• route captured interface to Interface Bypass & Decoupling;
• route contradiction exposure to Inversion Exhaustion / Self-Exposure;
• route institutional repair to Governance-Level Restoration;
• route responsibility repair to Responsibility Gradient Mapping;
• route affected-field harm to Victim-Centered Restoration;
• route non-restorable authority system to Supersession;
• route residual interface damage to Post-Interface Restoration.

Validation:

next arc selected
legitimacy does not self-certify
captured authority not restored by default

Phase 8 — Legitimacy Temporal Proof

Purpose: Validate that legitimacy recovers by repair, not messaging.

Actions:

• monitor public trust recovery;
• monitor appeal function;
• monitor correction uptake;
• monitor repair delivery;
• monitor recurrence;
• monitor intermediary control;
• monitor institutional self-protection;
• monitor affected-field confidence;
• monitor O_global.

Validation:

public_trust_recovery ↑
legitimacy_volatility ↓
accountability_continuity ↑
O_global ↑
recurrence ↓

7. Gates

7.1 Required Gates

7.2 Gate Failure Rule

If any required gate fails:

∅ — Legitimacy Re-Anchoring cannot validly complete.

The system must either:

• expand audit surface;
• clarify truth and causality;
• map responsibility gradients;
• repair appeal channels;
• expose inversion;
• bypass captured interface authority;
• decouple invalid intermediaries;
• route to governance-level restoration;
• or withhold legitimacy claims until temporal proof exists.

8. Diagnostics

8.1 Required Diagnostic Trends

8.2 Arc-Specific Diagnostic Thresholds

Suggested thresholds:

legitimacy_anchor_integrity ↑
public_trust_recovery ↑
authority_traceability ↑
responsibility_clarity ↑
repair_capacity_visibility ↑
affected_field_confidence ↑
intermediary_control_risk ↓
institutional_self_protection_pressure ↓
legitimacy_volatility ↓
accountability_continuity ↑
appeal_channel_integrity ↑
correction_channel_integrity ↑
consent_surface_integrity ↑
truth_repair_alignment ↑
H_public ↓
H_interface ↓
Au_eff ↑
FI ↑
BΣ ↑
𝓓 ↑
O_global ↑
recurrence ↓
Φ/O divergence ↓

Completion signs:

authority is traceable
responsibility is clear
repair capacity is visible
appeal and correction channels function
affected-field confidence improves
intermediary control declines
legitimacy volatility decreases
trust recovers through proof
temporal proof holds

Legitimacy Re-Anchoring is not complete if:

trust is demanded before repair
authority remains self-certified
evidence custody remains captured
appeal cannot change outcomes
correction channels are symbolic
responsibility remains diffused
public relations dominates repair
affected-field confidence does not improve
legitimacy volatility remains high
temporal proof is absent

9. Anti-Patterns / False Restorations

9.1 Common False Versions

This arc is being simulated, not executed, if:

• public trust is treated as something to regain rather than earn;
• messaging replaces repair;
• authority is asserted rather than traced;
• apology replaces accountability;
• evidence custody remains controlled by interested actors;
• appeal channels exist but cannot change outcomes;
• correction channels receive feedback but do not alter records;
• legitimacy is restored to the same captured intermediary by default;
• public confidence is measured by quiet rather than consent, correction, or repair;
• trust recovery is declared before temporal proof.

9.2 Named Anti-Pattern Links

10. Completion Criteria

10.1 Post-State Signature

10.2 Temporal Proof

Legitimacy Re-Anchoring cannot be certified by statement, apology, institutional assurance, public quiet, compliance metrics, media cycle completion, or restored reputation. It requires proof that trust improves through auditability, responsibility, repair, appeal, correction, and affected-field confidence.

Template:

Completion requires legitimacy_anchor_integrity ↑,
public_trust_recovery ↑,
authority_traceability ↑,
responsibility_clarity ↑,
repair_capacity_visibility ↑,
affected_field_confidence ↑,
intermediary_control_risk ↓,
institutional_self_protection_pressure ↓,
legitimacy_volatility ↓,
accountability_continuity ↑,
appeal_channel_integrity ↑,
correction_channel_integrity ↑,
consent_surface_integrity ↑,
truth_repair_alignment ↑,
H_public ↓,
H_interface ↓,
Au_eff ↑,
FI ↑,
BΣ ↑,
𝓓 ↑,
O_global ↑,
recurrence ↓,
and Φ/O divergence ↓ across U7.

Minimum temporal proof:

• authority remains traceable;
• responsibility remains assigned;
• repair capacity is visible and active;
• appeals can change outcomes;
• corrections can change records or interpretations;
• affected-field confidence improves;
• intermediary control decreases;
• legitimacy volatility decreases;
• hidden debt decreases;
• recurrence of legitimacy failure declines.

10.3 Completion Statement

Canonical format:

This arc is complete only when legitimacy is re-anchored to auditable authority, assigned responsibility, visible repair capacity, functioning appeal and correction channels, affected-field confidence, reduced intermediary control, reduced public hidden debt, and U7 proof that trust recovers through repair rather than messaging.

11. Cross-Links

11.1 Related Restoration Arcs

11.2 Related Failure Modes

11.3 Related Diagnostics

Au, Au_eff, H, H_public, H_interface, O, O_local, O_global, BΣ, K, σ, R, FI, 𝓓, legitimacy_anchor_integrity, public_trust_recovery, authority_traceability, responsibility_clarity, repair_capacity_visibility, affected_field_confidence, intermediary_control_risk, institutional_self_protection_pressure, legitimacy_volatility, accountability_continuity, appeal_channel_integrity, correction_channel_integrity, consent_surface_integrity, truth_repair_alignment, recurrence, Φ/O divergence

11.4 Related Laws / Invariants

INV — Legitimacy cannot be restored before responsibility is assigned.
INV — Trust demanded before repair becomes control.
INV — Authority without auditability is provisional.
INV — Appeal without outcome power is theater.
INV — Correction without record change is extraction.
INV — Public quiet is not public trust.
INV — Legitimacy must be earned through temporal proof.
LAW — PR success can increase Φ while O remains unrepaired.
LAW — Evidence custody capture preserves interface authority.
LAW — Trust recovery follows repair capacity, not reassurance.
LAW — Legitimacy proof is measured by affected-field confidence and reduced hidden debt.

12. Domain Notes

12.1 AI / Cognitive Infrastructure

Check:

• model governance authority;
• evaluator authority;
• policy drift ownership;
• user appeal;
• correction effects;
• training or memory provenance;
• public explanation;
• repair capacity.

AI legitimacy re-anchoring succeeds when users can see who decided, what changed, how to appeal, how harm is repaired, and how recurrence will be prevented.

12.2 Platform Governance

Check:

• moderation legitimacy;
• evidence custody;
• creator/user appeal;
• manipulation evidence;
• compensation or repair;
• public reporting;
• independent review;
• recurrence monitoring.

Platform legitimacy cannot be restored by transparency alone. It requires correction power and repair capacity.

12.3 Security / Public Risk

Check:

• disclosure authority;
• vulnerability handling;
• advisory credibility;
• stakeholder coordination;
• public protection;
• evidence integrity;
• post-incident accountability;
• recurrence prevention.

Security legitimacy depends on traceable decisions, proportionate disclosure, and repair outcomes.

12.4 Institutions / Governance

Check:

• authority registry;
• oversight;
• responsibility assignment;
• appeal;
• evidence custody;
• public participation;
• policy correction;
• durable accountability.

Institutional legitimacy re-anchors when authority becomes reviewable and repair obligations persist beyond the media cycle.

12.5 Media / Public Awareness

Check:

• correction channels;
• context integrity;
• source custody;
• claim boundaries;
• public trust;
• update cadence;
• affected-field dignity;
• narrative capture risk.

Media legitimacy depends on correction and evidence integrity, not narrative coherence alone.

12.6 Civilization-Scale Interface

Check:

• intermediary authority;
• public trust shock;
• collective consent surface;
• evidence custody;
• legitimacy transfer;
• bypass readiness;
• post-interface restoration;
• recurrence.

Civilization-scale legitimacy repair must avoid giving authority back to the same captured interface that produced the legitimacy failure.

13. Machine-Readable Metadata

id: "RA-C-003"
legacy_id: "RA-LEGIT-C2"
title: "Legitimacy Re-Anchoring"
aliases:
  - "Legitimacy Re-Anchoring"
  - "Civilization-Scale Legitimacy Repair"
  - "Public Trust Re-Anchoring"
  - "Authority Re-Anchoring"
family_primary: "Civilization-Scale Interface Grammar"
families_secondary:
  - "Specialized Grammar"
  - "Civilization-Scale Interface"
  - "Legitimacy"
  - "Governance"
  - "Public Trust"
  - "Authority"
  - "Accountability"
  - "Repair"
  - "Interface"
  - "Awareness"
  - "Auditability"
  - "AI Governance"
  - "Institutional Design"
  - "Platform Governance"
  - "Civilizational"
treatment: "Specialized Grammar / Legitimacy Repair Arc"
status: "Canon-Ready"
grammar_cluster: "Civilization-Scale Interface Grammar"
sequence_position: 2
previous_arc: "RA-C-002"
next_arc: "RA-C-004"
scope:
  - "Civilizational"
  - "Institutional"
  - "Governance"
  - "Platform"
  - "AI"
  - "Security"
  - "Public Interface"
  - "Media"
  - "Cognitive Infrastructure"
  - "Legitimacy Systems"
  - "High-Risk Interface"
  - "Cross-Domain"
u_layers:
  failure_origin:
    - "often U3 authority / governance layer"
    - "often U4 public interpretation layer"
    - "often U5 evidence / memory / provenance layer"
    - "often U6 legitimacy infrastructure"
    - "often U7 trust trajectory"
    - "often U8 horizon"
  symptom_visible:
    - "U4 / U6 public distrust, institutional messaging, contested authority, evidence dispute, legitimacy shock, or appeal failure"
  repair_required:
    - "at or below the layer where authority, evidence custody, repair capacity, appeal, or responsibility failure persists"
  validation:
    - "U6"
    - "U7"
operators:
  scaffold: "Σ legitimacy-through-repair invariant → Au authority / evidence / responsibility trace → FI affected-field trust and correction feedback → BΣ appeal / consent / authority boundary repair → Π legitimacy anchor redesign → Θ volatility / self-protection attenuation → ℛ responsibility / repair / accountability routing → Λ legitimacy-validity gate → Τ trust proof"
  sequence:
    - "Σ"
    - "Au"
    - "FI"
    - "BΣ"
    - "Π"
    - "Θ"
    - "ℛ"
    - "Λ"
    - "Τ"
state_variables:
  primary:
    - "Au"
    - "Au_eff"
    - "H"
    - "H_public"
    - "H_interface"
    - "O"
    - "O_local"
    - "O_global"
    - "BΣ"
    - "K"
    - "σ"
    - "R"
    - "FI"
  secondary:
    - "𝓓"
    - "Φ"
diagnostics:
  - "legitimacy_anchor_integrity"
  - "public_trust_recovery"
  - "authority_traceability"
  - "responsibility_clarity"
  - "repair_capacity_visibility"
  - "affected_field_confidence"
  - "intermediary_control_risk"
  - "institutional_self_protection_pressure"
  - "legitimacy_volatility"
  - "accountability_continuity"
  - "appeal_channel_integrity"
  - "correction_channel_integrity"
  - "consent_surface_integrity"
  - "truth_repair_alignment"
  - "recurrence"
  - "Φ/O divergence"
gates_required:
  - "Truth-Gate"
  - "FI-Gate"
  - "HR-Gate"
  - "MS-Gate"
  - "Au-Actuation"
  - "BΣ-Gate"
  - "Responsibility-Gate"
  - "Appeal-Gate"
  - "Repair-Gate"
  - "Anti-PR Gate"
  - "Λ-Gate"
  - "☷ᵢ"
linked_failure_modes:
  - "Legitimacy Volatility"
  - "Public Trust Collapse"
  - "Authority Drift"
  - "Intermediary Control"
  - "Legitimacy Shielding"
  - "Trust Without Repair"
  - "Disclosure Without Accountability"
  - "Public Confidence Capture"
  - "Institutional Self-Certification"
  - "Appeal Suppression"
  - "Responsibility Diffusion"
  - "Evidence Custody Capture"
  - "Narrative Legitimacy Substitute"
  - "Post-Awareness Governance Failure"
  - "High-Risk Gate Bypass"
linked_restoration_arcs:
  - "RA-A-002"
  - "RA-A-004"
  - "RA-A-008"
  - "RA-A-009"
  - "RA-A-012"
  - "RA-A-014"
  - "RA-A-016"
  - "RA-A-030"
  - "RA-A-040"
  - "RA-A-041"
  - "RA-A-043"
  - "RA-A-044"
  - "RA-A-046"
  - "RA-A-049"
  - "RA-A-050"
  - "RA-A-051"
  - "RA-A-052"
  - "RA-A-056"
  - "RA-A-080"
  - "RA-C-001"
  - "RA-C-002"
  - "RA-C-004"
  - "RA-C-005"
  - "RA-C-006"
anti_patterns:
  - "Legitimacy Shielding"
  - "Trust Without Repair"
  - "PR Substitution"
  - "Authority by Status"
  - "Evidence Custody Capture"
  - "Appeal Theater"
  - "Correction Sink"
  - "Responsibility Fog"
  - "Confidence Management"
  - "Institutional Self-Absolution"
  - "Re-Anchoring to Old Capture"
completion_tests:
  - "legitimacy anchor integrity increases"
  - "public trust recovery increases"
  - "authority traceability increases"
  - "responsibility clarity increases"
  - "repair capacity visibility increases"
  - "affected-field confidence increases"
  - "intermediary control risk decreases"
  - "institutional self-protection pressure decreases"
  - "legitimacy volatility decreases"
  - "accountability continuity increases"
  - "appeal channel integrity increases"
  - "correction channel integrity increases"
  - "consent surface integrity increases"
  - "truth repair alignment increases"
  - "public hidden debt decreases"
  - "interface hidden debt decreases"
  - "effective auditability increases"
  - "feedback integrity increases"
  - "boundary integrity increases"
  - "damping increases"
  - "global coherence increases"
  - "recurrence decreases"
  - "Φ/O divergence decreases"
summary: "Legitimacy Re-Anchoring repairs civilization-scale trust shock, authority drift, intermediary capture, public confidence collapse, and post-awareness legitimacy volatility by relocating authority to auditable truth, responsibility, affected-field feedback, repair capacity, and future-compatible accountability."

Final Calibration Rule

Legitimacy Re-Anchoring answers nine questions:

What trust surface, authority claim, or legitimacy structure was damaged?
Who claimed authority, who exercised authority, who benefited, and who carried burden?
What evidence, custody, decision, and responsibility records are auditable?
What repair capacity is visible and actionable?
Can affected fields appeal, correct, contest, and change outcomes?
What prevents legitimacy repair from becoming public relations?
What intermediary control must be reduced before trust can recover?
What next arc is required if captured authority cannot be repaired directly?
How is legitimacy proven over time through legitimacy_anchor_integrity ↑, public_trust_recovery ↑, responsibility_clarity ↑, repair_capacity_visibility ↑, affected_field_confidence ↑, H_public ↓, O_global ↑, and U7 proof?