The DMA does give the Commission a power to appoint independent external experts. It is discretionary, and it verifies after deployment. Here is what closes the gap it leaves regardless.

A gatekeeper designation ruling and a pending interoperability dispute are frequently treated as the same question. They are not. One determines who the Digital Markets Act applies to; the other determines what standard of evidence a regulator will accept once it does. This article examines the distinction the European Commission has already drawn, and the structural parallel it carries for pre-execution evidentiary architecture.

Financial risk assessments of cloud concentration measure dependency as an operational and strategic exposure. They do not measure it as an evidentiary exposure. When an organization's proof infrastructure resides within the same perimeter as its operational infrastructure, proof collapse occurs the moment evidentiary circularity meets adversarial scrutiny. This article identifies the structural condition — S ∩ C = ∅ — that financial risk frameworks do not yet incorporate.

Regulators regulate markets. Courts adjudicate facts. Only architecture can produce proof. The DMA designation of cloud gatekeepers does not resolve evidentiary independence.