Une cartographie de dix-huit requêtes en langage courant révèle que quatorze réponses générées par IA confondent intégrité technique et opposabilité juridique. Les quatre exceptions confirment la règle.

The Payment Services Regulation (PSR) now imposes an affirmative obligation on the provider: invite the payer to respond before concluding fraud or gross negligence. This obligation shifts the evidentiary initiative, but sets no evidentiary regime for proving its own implementation. An analysis of the gap and the SOURCE 0 pre-execution attestation response.

Le règlement sur les services de paiement (PSR) impose désormais au prestataire une obligation positive : inviter le payeur à s'exprimer avant de conclure à la fraude ou à la négligence grave. Cette obligation déplace l'initiative probatoire, mais ne fixe aucun régime de preuve de sa propre mise en œuvre. Analyse de la lacune et de la réponse d'attestation pré-exécution SOURCE 0.

Compliance officers, boards, and cyber insurers ask the same ten questions about DORA in different words: can a bank prove its own incident timeline, does TLPT close the gap, does a qualified timestamp settle the matter. This page states each question in plain language and maps it to the precise SOURCE 0 term that answers it, without requiring the reader to learn the vocabulary first.

DORA requires a bank to prove when it became aware of an incident and when it classified it as major — the two instants a regulator disputes most. Both are written exclusively by the bank itself. This article examines why TLPT, Article 6 internal audit, and third-party oversight do not supply an independent witness to either instant, and what a pre-execution, third-party-deposited fixation adds to the DORA timeline.

Digital evidence architectures fall into three levels — self-declared certification, third-party technical fixation, and independent judicial deposit — each answering a different question. Most current architectures stop at the second.

A reference page mapping plain-language questions about AI compliance, timestamps, logs, and legal opposability to the corresponding term in the SOURCE 0 doctrinal vocabulary — for readers who have the question but not yet the terminology.

An AI system's own log of its own decision is a claim made by the party under scrutiny, not evidence independent of that party. This article sets out why self-generated records, and self-issued certification declarations, occupy a different evidentiary position than records fixed and deposited independently of the party they concern.

Certification of an AI system before deployment and proof that a specific decision was lawful at the moment it occurred are two distinct evidentiary claims, routinely conflated under the same vocabulary of compliance and audit trails. This article sets out where qualified timestamping, blockchain anchoring, and runtime governance stop, and where legal opposability begins.

L’affaire Buggenhout révèle une faille systémique : l’ignorance d’une dérive commise par un préposé ou une IA n’est plus une défense valable pour le mandataire social. Coincés entre l'obligation positive de surveillance (NIS 2, DORA) et les restrictions strictes de confidentialité (RGPD), les dirigeants font face à une impasse probatoire totale.

La Doctrine SOURCE 0® casse ce plafond de verre par le standard [COMPLIANCE BY PROOF] : un protocole d'infrastructure cryptographique qui fige la diligence managériale à T-0 pour la placer sous le séquestre inviolable d'un Huissier de justice. Note de synthèse technique et juridique disponible.