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

Landgericht München I, 28 May 2026. Google bore direct liability for AI-generated content. The defence it did not pursue — proof of E(T₀) singularity — did not exist.

The law knows how to prove what happened. It does not know how to prove what did not happen. In autonomous AI governance, this asymmetry is not a procedural inconvenience — it is a structural liability gap. Logs record occurrences. They cannot record absences. An AI system that failed to alert, an operator who failed to intervene, a supervisor who failed to activate the override mechanism: none of these non-actions leave a trace in any audit trail. SOURCE 0 closes this gap through the Non-Action Governance Map — a pre-execution seal of the precise conditions under which intervention was mandatory, produced at T-0 by an independent authority. When those conditions are met and no intervention appears in the evidentiary record, the non-action becomes a legally opposable fact under the EU AI Act, the Product Liability Directive 2024, and NIS 2.

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.