Contradiction register
Autonomous lethal defense as claimed necessity versus absent authorization
Resolution state
K04 retains the scenario for high-level assurance analysis, rejects automatic legal conclusions, and requires primary law, regulator decisions, independent testing, and competent authorization before any implementation claim.
Proposition A
Response-time and cost constraints can make autonomous armed protection appear operationally necessary for high-consequence facilities.
Proposition B
Operational necessity and technical feasibility do not themselves create domestic authority, aviation approval, nuclear-regulatory acceptance, human-rights compliance, or lawful rules of engagement.
Relationship
STRATEGIC CLAIM VERSUS LEGAL AND EVIDENTIARY BOUNDARY
Resolution method
K04 retains the scenario for high-level assurance analysis, rejects automatic legal conclusions, and requires primary law, regulator decisions, independent testing, and competent authorization before any implementation claim.
Resolution status: UNRESOLVED QUESTION.
Evidence and source scope
No public source record is assigned; the claim remains bounded by project doctrine, a governed report, or an explicitly unresolved evidence requirement.