the legitimacy decomposition is the working framing, and not a claim

Maintainer ruling. The decomposition

Legitimacy ~ Diachronic Answerability, with its semantic authentication + Counterfactual non-capture subject to Affordability as the realizability condition

is approximately the right framing for the bigger picture and is adopted as the shape future work aims at. It is not a frozen claim, not a theorem, and not a definition: no legitimacy predicate exists, the terms are not shown independent, and joint sufficiency is unproved.

The distinction is the whole content of the ruling. A round may sequence work against this framing — that is what it is for. A round may not cite it as established, build a theorem on it as a hypothesis, or present it outside this repository as the program's account of legitimacy.

LEGITIMACY_DECOMPOSITION.md keeps its assessment and its =?; what changes is that the framing is now the sanctioned direction rather than one candidate among several. Writing the predicate down remains the cheap next step that would settle whether the shape survives contact with a statement.

Rejected alternative: canonizing it. Three rounds built on a wrong decomposition costs more than the delay, and the predicate is an afternoon's work away.