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.