A governance claim that cannot be executed and verified is advisory, regardless of how rigorously it is argued. The proof obligation is a runnable artifact, something a skeptic can clone and watch refuse, not a manifesto.
Every strong governance argument eventually meets the same question: show me. A position paper describes what enforcement should do. It does not establish that any system does it. Until the claim reduces to something a reader runs, and watches halt on the case it promised to halt on, it remains advisory, no matter how tight the prose.
The proof obligation for runtime governance is an artifact, not an essay. A skeptic clones it, feeds it the ambiguous input, and sees it default-deny. Doctrine earns its authority by becoming executable: the distance between a claim about enforcement and an enforcement you run is the distance between content and proof.