The EU's Trust and Check trader status is verified once, before the Customs Data Hub is fully operational. In the interval between the two, only the trader's own records attest to its compliance.

Le statut d'opérateur Trust and Check de l'UE est vérifié une fois, avant que le Customs Data Hub ne soit pleinement opérationnel. Dans l'intervalle entre les deux, seuls les registres de l'opérateur attestent de sa conformité.

A continuing AI Act infringement's five-year limitation clock starts on the day it ceased. That date is usually set by the same organisation whose diligence is in question.

The Digital Omnibus deferral is no longer political. It is law, in force since 27 July 2026. What remains unprovable is what organisations knew and decided during the twenty-five days before that.

The Digital Omnibus on AI answers dozens of implementation questions. None of them answer how an organisation proves what it knew and did, using a record it doesn't control.

Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2092 evaluates a Member State using courts, auditors, OLAF, GRECO — never the state's own word. One narrow provision breaks that pattern: the follow-up report on whether beneficiaries were actually paid. SOURCE 0 closes that one gap.

The same proposal that requires a qualified technical body to certify a satellite's environmental footprint asks nothing of the sort for its incident reports. Self-detection, self-logging, self-declaration. SOURCE 0 fixes the record before the operator writes it.

Article 50 tells you what to disclose. It says nothing about proving when you disclosed it — and that silence is where liability actually lives.

From 2 August 2026, Article 50 requires disclosure that a person is interacting with an AI system. This deadline is unaffected by the Digital Omnibus deferral of Articles 9-15. SOURCE 0 seals the disclosure configuration before the interactions it governs.

The four categories of the SOURCE 0 Doctrine are not parallel classifications. They constitute a causal sequence — problem domain, methodological response, legal operationalization, normative constraint field — whose coherence depends on the formal articulation of three inter-layer interfaces. This article makes that architecture explicit, disambiguates its shared vocabulary across eleven distinct definitions, establishes the material modification threshold, closes the deliberate misclassification escape route, and maps each layer against its precise regulatory obligations. The four-layer architecture is not a model. It is a condition of proof.

Trusted Execution Environments seal AI workloads at the silicon level. They do not produce legally opposable evidence. When the operator controls the attestation keys, the Hardware Attestation Report remains endogenous to the system under audit — a structural circularity that no firmware update resolves. SOURCE 0 CERTIFIED closes this gap with an independent Governance Proof Layer: T-0 Capture, SHA-256 hash-chaining, dual-QTSP RFC 3161 timestamping under eIDAS 2, and judicial archiving by a Commissaire de Justice. The result is a Dossier de Réalité Historique directly enforceable across the EU under Brussels I bis — satisfying the ex-ante burden of proof imposed by AI Act Article 99.