International Statute on Systemic Governance, Biophysical Supremacy, and Binding Legal Automation (c-ΣCO Regime)

The c-ΣCO SYSTEMIC GOVERNANCE STATUTE hereby institutes a transnational legal regime founded upon predictive governance, the absolute primacy of biophysical boundaries, and binding legal automation, recognizing that the validity, efficacy, and continuity of any legal order are ontologically dependent upon the material conditions that sustain life, economic activity, and the functional integrity of the Earth System.

WHEREAS, classical legal models, predominantly grounded in retrospective causality and ex-post liability, have proven structurally insufficient to manage systemic risks, positive feedback loops, and ecological tipping points, the effects of which are cumulative, transboundary, and irreversible;

RECOGNIZING the emergence of Trajectory Illegality (Ilicitude de Trajetória), whereby formally lawful acts become legally inadmissible when their predictable technical continuation leads to the collapse of ecosystems, critical infrastructures, or the compromise of the global commons;

AFFIRMING that the economic value, validity, and enforceability of legal bonds are strictly subordinate to the preservation of the Safe Operating Space (SOS), the habitability of ecosystems, and the technical reversibility of risk trajectories;

ESTABLISHING the centrality of certified technical data, conferring sovereign legal primacy upon continuous sensory evidence and automated systemic monitoring mechanisms over subjective declarations, ex-post estimates, discretionary administrative authorizations, or legal constructions decoupled from physical reality;

INSTITUTING Ex-Ante Unenforceability, systemic perclusion, the conditioned immediate object, and functional conversion as sovereign legal instruments for the preventive protection of the system, applicable even to vested rights and formally perfected acts when such elements compromise biophysical stability, reversibility, or planetary security;

DECLARING the absolute precedence of physical time over legal-procedural time, and of biophysical limits over private autonomy, administrative discretion, or state sovereignty exercised in non-conformity with material reality;

THIS STATUTE SOLEMNLY AFFIRMS THAT:

I — No right subsists outside the biophysical conditions that render it possible;

II — No profit or economic advantage is legitimate when derived from systemic exhaustion or the irreversible consumption of natural capital;

III — The preservation of the functional integrity of the Earth System precedes any individual, corporate, or state interest.

By the authority of these imperatives, the c-ΣCO Systemic Governance Regime is hereby instituted, possessing immediate applicability and universal vocation, to govern contracts, assets, operations, and infrastructures whose execution interferes with critical boundaries, with the objective of preventing collapse, ensuring reversibility and regeneration, and subordinating the legal order to the material reality that sustains it.

On the Transition from Retrospective Causality to the Systemic Predictive Nexus and Trajectory Protection

Contemporary legal systems have been, for the most part, structured upon models of retrospective liability in which normative intervention occurs only after the materialization of harm. While this architecture has proven functional for localized and reversible risks, it is structurally insufficient to address systemic, cumulative, and irreversible risks whose effects transcend contractual, sectoral, and territorial boundaries.

The interdependence between economic activities, critical infrastructures, and biophysical systems mandates that Law act upon risk trajectories rather than merely responding to consummated events, since, in systemic contexts, awaiting the occurrence of harm compromises the very possibility of reversal and hollows out the efficacy of legal protection based exclusively on posterior remediation.

In this context, this Statute recognizes the emergence of trajectory illegality, referred to as ilicitude de trajetória, understood as the situation in which formally lawful acts, when executed in an unconditioned or inertial manner, lead in a technically predictable way to the collapse of systems essential to habitability, economic stability, or institutional integrity. As a result, the classical distinction between lawfulness and unlawfulness proves insufficient and gives way to the criterion of systemic compatibility of the execution trajectory.

The c-ΣCO Regime promotes the replacement of retrospective causality with the systemic predictive nexus through which the validity, enforceability, and continuity of legal bonds are strictly conditioned upon the preservation of the Safe Operating Space and upon the technical reversibility of risk trajectories, as verified by objective, verifiable, and auditable technical data.

In order to operationalize this transition, the Statute establishes a set of structural legal mechanisms whose coordinated functions neutralize systemic risk at different stages of the legal relationship. Ex-ante unenforceability operates as a validity filter through which contractual or administrative claims that have become systemically unsustainable, despite formal perfection, are deprived of executive force, thereby preventing judicial or regulatory authorities from compelling the performance of obligations that would deepen the risk of collapse.

Systemic perclusion functions as an immediate block on the continuation of formally lawful acts once they reach predefined technical danger thresholds, with the purpose of halting inertial trajectories before they advance toward biophysical irreversibility.

The conditioned immediate object links the very legal existence of the required performance to the maintenance of the integrity of the underlying asset, such that material instability affecting the life-support system triggers the automatic transformation of the contractual object, thereby prioritizing the safeguarding of the system over the original financial or economic delivery.

Enforcement linked to certified sensory data establishes a regime of legal automation grounded in verifiable biophysical reality, under which monitoring devices and certified technological systems are capable of activating safety protocols and suspending activities in real time, thus eliminating the temporal gap between physical danger and normative response.

These instruments are strictly preventive and conservatory in nature and are designed for the immediate containment of trajectories incompatible with systemic stability. They do not possess a punitive character but instead operate as imperatives directed toward the preservation of material public order and the continuity of the Earth System.

The validity, enforceability, and continuity of any acts, contracts, or operations subject to the c-ΣCO regime are subordinated to the preservation of the Safe Operating Space (SOS), understood as the set of biophysical and systemic limits whose transgression compromises habitability, the integrity of life-support systems, or the reversibility of projected impacts. No legal effect may be recognized for acts or arrangements whose execution presupposes or entails the violation of such limits.

Where material technical uncertainty exists regarding risk trajectories, impact reversibility, or systemic integrity, legal decision-making shall prioritize the protection of the system.

Under the c-ΣCO regime, the validity, efficacy, and enforceability of acts, contracts, decisions, and operations are determined in accordance with the primacy of physical time and biophysical reality over legal or procedural time, and with the non-disposable nature of systemic collapse risk, as follows:

Under the c-ΣCO regime, the risk of systemic collapse, the exhaustion of critical resources, and the loss of habitability constitute a non-disposable legal interest.

Governance under the c-ΣCO regime operates primarily ex ante, acting upon risk trajectories identified prior to the materialization of harm, and institutes Systemic Perclusion as an immediate legal impediment to the exercise of legal faculties, acts, contracts, or operations whenever the technical continuity of an asset, operation, or projected impact is incompatible with systemic stability, habitability, or reversibility.

Sole Section — Structural Legal Elements and Operational Definitions

Under the c-ΣCO regime, the governance of contracts, assets, and operations is determined by their Functional Integrity within the Earth System, and legal validity is conditioned upon the continuous alignment between economic activity and the biophysical stability of the systems that sustain it.

The c-ΣCO regime operates under the Rule of Systemic Compatibility, whereby formal lawfulness, regulatory authorization, or administrative compliance is insufficient to ensure the subsistence or enforceability of legal acts.

The subsistence, enforceability, and continuity of legal relationships subject to the c-ΣCO regime are strictly conditioned upon predictive technical verification of the following parameters:

Under the c-ΣCO regime, the immediate object of any legal relationship is legally conditioned upon the preservation of biophysical stability. The performance of any obligation shall be valid and enforceable only for so long as the systemic conditions ensuring the preservation of habitability and the maintenance of the Safe Operating Space (SOS) are effectively verified.

The legal obligation exists and produces effects only for so long as the technical trajectory of the operation remains compatible with systemic reversibility and the stability of the Safe Operating Space (SOS), as verified through continuous Systemic Proof.

Enforceability of any obligation, prestation, or execution right detached from preservation of habitability of the affected system is prohibited, and acts imposing legal performance under irreversible systemic degradation scenarios are null.

Under the c-ΣCO systemic governance regime, the validity of a legal bond constitutes a continuous legal condition, subject to ongoing technical verification throughout its execution.

The validity of the legal bond persists only for as long as the technical, biophysical, and operational conditions that ensure the compatibility of the performance with the Safe Operating Space (SOS) and the reversibility of the projected impacts are maintained, in accordance with the risk thresholds defined in Article 5.

The verified loss of the systemic conditions necessary for the preservation of reversibility entails the automatic lapse of the validity of the legal bond (ipso jure), irrespective of notice, judicial, administrative, or arbitral declaration.

Ex-Ante Unenforceability (IEX) constitutes an autonomous legal category, of material public order, by which the enforceability of obligations, execution rights, and the practice of operational acts are automatically suspended whenever predictive technical analysis indicates that the continuation of performance would lead to a trajectory incompatible with systemic reversibility or with the stability of the Safe Operating Space (SOS).

Ex-Ante Unenforceability (IEX) operates as an automatic legal circuit breaker, functioning as a mandatory mechanism of systemic containment, triggered exclusively by certified technical and sensory data produced in accordance with the Systemic Proof regime.

Under the c-ƩCO regime, IEX replaces inquiry into subjective legal causes with an objective systemic criterion, and technical evidence of risk trajectory prevails over intent, fault, good faith, or any volitional element of the agent.

Ex-Ante Unenforceability produces immediate effects and is opposable erga omnes, not depending upon prior notice or judicial, administrative, or arbitral declaration, and remains effective while the technical conditions that triggered it persist.

Systemic perclusion consists of legal blocking of formally lawful acts whose isolated or cumulative continuation contributes to construction of a technical trajectory incompatible with the Safe Operating Space or systemic reversibility.

Blocking, suspension, or definitive prohibition of lawful acts is legitimate where technical evidence demonstrates that their continued execution predictably leads to exhaustion of critical resources, loss of habitability, or systemic collapse, even absent formal unlawfulness or contractual breach.

Trajectory perclusion prohibits continuation of projects, operations, or activities whose technical trajectory has already exceeded the compatibility threshold with systemic reversibility, regardless of belated corrective measures or subjective change of the executing agent.

Systemic perclusion and trajectory perclusion are opposable to any new operator, manager, controller, acquirer, or successor, and are not neutralized by substitution of parties, corporate reorganization, or transfer of the asset or operation.

The Safe Operating Space (SOS) constitutes the legal-material limit within which contracts, assets, operations, and infrastructures may be validly executed, corresponding to the set of biophysical parameters whose violation compromises habitability and systemic reversibility.

Price, economic value, contractual remuneration, and any financial return metrics are legally subordinated to compatibility of the operation with the Safe Operating Space, and formation of value presuming or depending upon transgression of monitored planetary or local limits is prohibited.

Prices, values, yields, or profits formed in violation of the Safe Operating Space are legally null and shall not produce obligational, indemnificatory, or compensatory effects, even if agreed between the parties or authorized by administrative norms incompatible with systemic limits.

The nullity provided for in the preceding Article is opposable erga omnes and cannot be set aside by allegations of good faith, economic-financial equilibrium, legitimate expectation, or vested right based on metrics detached from biophysical reality.

Under the c-ƩCO systemic governance regime, the legal recognition, economic relevance, and enforceability of assets, contracts, and operations are inseparably linked to the preservation of the habitability of the ecosystems and life-support systems upon which they depend.

No asset, contractual position, or operational activity shall be treated as legally or economically autonomous from the material systems that sustain its functionality and continuity.

The formation, maintenance, recognition, and enforceability of the economic value of any asset subject to the c-ƩCO regime depend upon the continuous preservation of the ecosystem that sustains it.

Valuation methods, accounting treatments, pricing models, or risk metrics that disregard projected, detected, or verified systemic degradation, loss of habitability, or breach of Safe Operating Space thresholds shall be ineffective within the c-ƩCO regime for purposes of governance, supervision, enforcement, or liability attribution.

Any legal, accounting, contractual, or structural dissociation between a financial asset and the lifesupport systems conferring its habitability is without effect under the c-ƩCO regime.

Instruments or arrangements designed to isolate economic returns, cash flows, or financial exposure from the underlying ecological, territorial, infrastructural, or systemic integrity upon which the asset depends shall produce no legal effects for purposes of valuation, enforceability, or regulatory recognition.

Caput. Under the c-ƩCO regime, any asset-segregation, securitization, assignment, synthetic risk transfer, contractual loss allocation, or corporate structuring arrangement that has as its purpose or effect the severance of the habitability nexus shall be non-opposable and shall produce no legal effects for the purposes of habitability assessment, pre-threshold suspension triggers (IEX), D-MRV enforcement, supervision, or liability attribution.

In all cases, the indissociable unity between the asset, the correlated ecosystem, and its systemic trajectory shall prevail.

Failure to meet these conditions results in non-opposability under this Article.

Under the c-ƩCO systemic governance regime, the existence, enforceability, and scope of any real, personal, functional, or hybrid guarantee are legally conditioned upon:

(a) the continued biophysical viability and habitability of the underlying asset; and

(b) the strict operational alignment of the guaranteed activity with the applicable Safe Operating Space (SOS) and planetary boundaries.

Sole Paragraph. Guarantees under this regime are materially accessory to the ecological conditions that sustain the functional integrity of the underlying asset. Any contractual, financial, or structural arrangement intended to decouple financial exposure from ecological integrity is ineffective within the c-ƩCO regime.

The subsistence, enforceability, and opposability of collateral are conditioned upon the continuous preservation of the biophysical viability of the guaranteed asset.

Any attempt to enforce guarantees or collateral arrangements that facilitates, rewards, conceals, or presupposes the continuation of unviable, unsafe, or collapse-bound systemic trajectories shall be non-opposable to the c-ƩCO regime and shall produce no legal effects for purposes of supervision, enforcement, or liability attribution.

The occurrence of systemic collapse, loss of habitability, or biophysical inviability of the underlying asset shall result, ex lege, in the automatic conversion of the guarantee into a Systemic Restoration Obligation, rather than its simple extinction.

All values, assets, proceeds, reserves, and economic advantages linked to the converted guarantee pursuant to Article 33 constitute segregated restoration assets and shall be exclusively and preferentially allocated to:

(a) immediate ecological restoration of the degraded asset;

(b) safe, non-toxic, and irreversible decommissioning of related infrastructure; and

(c) systemic compensation and remediation measures for affected local communities.

Sole Paragraph. The use of such assets for the satisfaction of secondary or residual financial claims, including unsecured debt, dividends, distributions, or interest, is strictly prohibited until full biophysical stabilization is formally certified under the c-ƩCO regime.

Systemic Proof consists of objective technical evidence derived from certified sensorial data continuously monitored, capable of demonstrating the state, trajectory, and reversibility of impacts of contracts, assets, and operations subject to the c-ƩCO regime.

Certified sensory data constitute the central evidentiary source under the c-ƩCO regime and shall be presumed true, intact, and sufficient for purposes of assessing systemic compliance, save upon conclusive technical proof of material failure of the measurement system.

Systemic Proof shall prevail over declaratory evidence, witness evidence, ex post expert evidence, economic estimates, or any other evidentiary means that do not continuously and objectively reflect the monitored technical and biophysical reality.

Systemic Proof shall produce immediate effects and shall be opposable erga omnes, legitimizing activation of automatic locks, Ex-Ante Unenforceability (IEX), systemic perclusion, and conditional execution, independently of any judicial, administrative, or arbitral pronouncement.

The burden of challenging Systemic Proof shall fall entirely upon the party contesting it, and any allegation of technical error shall be demonstrated by specific material evidence, without suspension of systemic effects while verification is pending.

The Curatorial Trigger consists of the automatic legal mechanism that, upon technical evidence of trajectory deviation, critical risk, or loss of reversibility, immediately activates measures of correction, mitigation, restoration, or safe decommissioning.

Upon activation of the Curatorial Trigger, resources previously constituted under algorithmic custody or linked funds shall be released automatically and directly for execution of technical correction and restoration measures, as validated by the Data Assessment Authority.

Under the c-ƩCO regime, correction of the systemic trajectory and restoration of habitability shall have absolute priority over any form of ex post indemnification, and substitution of the curatorial response by financial compensations detached from reversibility is prohibited.

Indemnification, compensatory, or insurance solutions intended to substitute, postpone, or avoid activation of the Curatorial Trigger shall produce no legal effects, and the duty of immediate technical intervention shall prevail.

Safe Mode constitutes the legal state of systemic containment whereby execution of contracts, operations, or flows is temporarily suspended or reconfigured in order to preserve system integrity and prevent propagation of critical risks.

Once Safe Mode is activated, suspension or modulation of execution shall occur in a coordinated manner among interdependent agents, contracts, and infrastructures, in order to prevent cascade effects that expand systemic risk beyond controllable limits.

In Safe Mode, preservation of the system’s stability, habitability, and reversibility shall prevail over individual performance targets, profit, operational efficiency, or isolated compliance with contractual obligations.

Suspension or modulation of obligations resulting from activation of Safe Mode shall not constitute default, delay, or contractual breach, and penalties, fines, or sanctions based solely on the interruption necessary for systemic protection shall be unenforceable.

The State Machine consists of the legal-operational architecture that governs execution, suspension, modulation, and cessation of contracts, assets, and operations subject to the c-ƩCO regime, based on the objective evolution of the monitored systemic trajectory.

Execution under the c-ƩCO regime shall occur through progressive phases corresponding to previously defined technical states, and automatic continuation of execution is prohibited once transition to alert, containment, or unenforceability states is identified.

The c-ƩCO regime overcomes the binary logic of full execution or contractual rupture, allowing modulation, suspension, functional novation, or progressive cessation of obligations according to the identified systemic state.

Transitions among states of the State Machine shall produce automatic and binding legal effects, conditioning the validity, enforceability, and continuity of obligations, independently of the parties’ manifestation of will.

Upon reaching critical states defined by the State Machine—especially those associated with loss of systemic reversibility—return to full execution by discretionary decision, private agreement, or administrative authorization detached from technical reality is prohibited.

The Ex-Ante Systemic Design Duty constitutes the core legal obligation under the c-ƩCO regime, requiring the prior, integrated, and verifiable conception of the technical architecture necessary for execution of contracts, assets, and operations compatible with the Safe Operating Space.

Systemic design shall define, prior to execution:

Execution of any obligation, execution right, or operation subject to the c-ƩCO regime is prohibited without prior validation of the systemic design by the Data Assessment Authority or equivalent technical body defined in this Statute.

Execution carried out in the absence of validated systemic design is legally ineffective and shall not generate rights, legitimate expectations, indemnities, or compensations grounded in the irregular continuation of the operation.

Systemic design that proves incomplete, inadequate, obsolete, or technically insufficient to prevent trajectories incompatible with reversibility shall constitute defective design, giving rise to strict liability of the agent responsible for its conception, approval, or implementation.

Responsibility for systemic design is non-delegable and shall not be displaced by outsourcing, engagement of consultants, certifiers, or suppliers, nor by allegations of formal compliance detached from technical effectiveness.

The Continuous Systemic Maintenance Duty imposes the permanent obligation to preserve, throughout execution, the technical, financial, and operational conditions ensuring compatibility of the operation with the Safe Operating Space and systemic reversibility.

The responsible agent shall ensure continuous maintenance of the sensory system, including calibration, redundancy, technological updating, and data integrity, so as to guarantee the reliability of Systemic Proof throughout the operation’s life cycle.

Financial capacity dedicated to reversibility, mitigation, and restoration shall be continuously maintained and replenished, and supplementary contributions shall be mandatory whenever the Data Assessment Authority identifies an increase in the projected cost of systemic reversal.

The responsible agent shall continuously adopt technical and operational measures to correct trajectory deviations before activation of critical states, and deliberate inertia or tolerance of predictable risk progression is prohibited.

The Continuous Systemic Maintenance Duty constitutes a minimum result obligation, consisting in preserving compatibility of the operational trajectory with monitored systemic limits, and shall not be satisfied by mere formal procedural compliance.

The maintenance duty is non-delegable, and legal responsibility remains with the principal agent even where material performance of maintenance activities is assigned to third parties, suppliers, or specialized operators.

Deterioration of the sensory system, insufficiency of financial reversibility capacity, or progression of a trajectory incompatible with reversibility shall constitute systemic maintenance failure, legitimizing activation of containment measures, IEX, perclusion, or sanctions provided in this Statute.

The Algorithmic Causation Nexus consists of the ex ante legal identification of the relationship between execution of acts, contracts, or operations and their projected technical trajectories, based on analytical models, sensory data, and verifiable simulations.

Causation under the c-ƩCO regime is established predictively, considering the probability, direction, and irreversibility of the projected systemic trajectory, independently of present material damage.

Digital and sensory proof produced by certified continuous monitoring systems constitutes an appropriate evidentiary means to demonstrate the algorithmic causation nexus, the evolution of the technical trajectory, and compatibility of the operation with the Safe Operating Space.

Under the c-ƩCO regime, digital and sensory proof replaces declaratory, witness, or ex post expert proof for purposes of assessing systemic compliance, and objective technical evidence prevails over subjective narratives or subsequent reconstructions.

Systemic Proof enjoys a presumption of validity, integrity, and fidelity, and may only be displaced by specific technical demonstration of material failure, data corruption, or proven defect of the measurement system.

Sensory data, analytical models, state transitions, and activations of systemic triggers shall be recorded in immutable and auditable technical infrastructure, ensuring traceability, transparency, and evidentiary integrity.

The immutable technical record shall produce full legal effects and shall be opposable erga omnes, binding agents, successors, administrative authorities, courts, and arbitral tribunals to the evidence recorded therein.

The Data Assessment Authority is the technical-legal entity responsible for collecting, validating, processing, and making available the sensory data underlying Systemic Proof, automatic triggers, and state transitions under the c-ƩCO regime.

The Data Assessment Authority performs a binding legal function, and its technical validations are capable of producing automatic effects upon the validity, enforceability, and continuity of contracts, operations, and execution rights subject to the c-ƩCO regime.

The Data Assessment Authority shall cumulatively ensure:

The Data Assessment Authority and the sensors it employs shall be technically certified according to objective standards of reliability, precision, and interoperability, and use of non-certified systems for purposes of Systemic Proof is prohibited.

The Data Assessment Authority shall operate with functional independence from monitored agents, and any form of economic, contractual, political, or operational capture compromising the impartiality of systemic assessment is prohibited.

Contractual, bylaw, or regulatory clauses restricting the Authority’s technical autonomy, monitoring scope, or reporting capacity are unenforceable.

Challenges to technical assessment shall be submitted exclusively by objective technical means and limited to demonstration of material failure, hardware defect, proven software error, or data corruption.

The burden of technical challenge rests entirely with the party raising it, and does not suspend the effectiveness of automatic triggers, IEX, or state transitions while verification of the alleged failure is pending.

Any eventual validity of a technical challenge shall be validated by the Technical Curatorship Chamber or equivalent body defined in this Statute, and discretionary review of measurements by a non-technical authority is prohibited.

The Alert Architecture of the c-ƩCO regime integrates the Systemic State Machine responsible for continuously classifying the technical condition of the operation, binding legal execution to the objective evolution of the monitored trajectory.

The Systemic State Machine shall comprise, at minimum, the following legal-operational states:

State transitions shall be determined exclusively by objective technical criteria previously defined in the systemic design, based on certified sensory data, validated analytical models, and established risk parameters.

State transitions shall produce automatic and binding legal effects upon the validity, enforceability, and continuity of obligations, independently of notice, manifestation of will by the parties, or any judicial, administrative, or arbitral pronouncement.

Every state transition, alert issued, or trigger activation shall be recorded in immutable and auditable technical infrastructure, ensuring traceability, transparency, and integrity of systemic decisions.

Upon reaching the Orange or Red States, the systemic decisions recorded shall become legally irreversible for as long as the technical conditions that caused them persist, and their suspension or reversal by private agreement, administrative act, or non-technical decision is prohibited.

Automatic continuation of execution of contracts or operations after transition to alert or containment states is prohibited, and agents shall immediately adopt the measures required by the identified systemic state.

Execution Rights consist of conditional legal permissions that authorize, on a progressive and revocable basis, the performance of acts, the enforceability of prestations, and the continuity of operations subject to the c-ƩCO regime.

Execution Rights do not constitute vested rights nor autonomous legal expectations, and subsist only so long as the systemic, technical, and biophysical conditions that gave rise to them remain in place.

Enablement of Execution Rights depends on continuous technical validation by the Data Assessment Authority, based on Systemic Proof and compatibility of the operational trajectory with the Safe Operating Space.

Absence of technical validation, deterioration of the sensory system, or detection of relevant trajectory deviation shall result in automatic suspension of the enablement of Execution Rights, independently of notice or formal demand.

Anticipatory Unenforceability applies where technical analysis indicates that continuation of execution will, predictably, lead to loss of systemic reversibility, immediately suspending the enforceability of any related acts or prestations.

Automatic blocking of formally lawful acts is legitimate where technical evidence demonstrates that their performance contributes to construction of a trajectory incompatible with the Safe Operating Space, even absent contractual default or formal unlawfulness.

Suspension, anticipatory unenforceability, or blocking of acts shall produce full legal effects and shall be opposable erga omnes, binding parties, successors, creditors, administrative authorities, and judicial or arbitral fora.

Contractual clauses, guarantees, or acceleration mechanisms imposing unrestricted execution in conflict with identified systemic states are unenforceable, and conditional execution as provided in this Statute shall prevail.

The Automatic Duty of Cooperation (Join Duty) imposes upon all agents whose activities affect the same system, critical limit, or ecosystem an immediate legal obligation of technical and informational cooperation whenever a systemic risk trajectory is identified.

The Automatic Duty of Cooperation is activated by objective technical evidence of relevant risk, transition to alert or containment states, or activation of the Curatorial Trigger, regardless of the existence of a direct contractual link between the agents involved.

Once the Duty of Cooperation is activated, the parties cease acting exclusively as opposing poles of interest and assume, temporarily or permanently depending on the systemic state, the legal condition of System Curators, with a priority duty to preserve habitability and reversibility.

Transition to critical states of the State Machine produces functional novation of the legal relationship, replacing individual goals of profit, performance, or isolated execution with collective goals of containment, correction, restoration, or safe decommissioning.

During functional novation, the systemic function of the legal relationship shall prevail over originally agreed obligations, and prestations incompatible with preservation of the affected system shall be suspended or modulated.

Mandatory cooperation does not authorize continuation of unviable trajectories, and trajectory perclusion remains applicable whenever loss of systemic reversibility is identified, even where there is consensus among the agents involved.

The Automatic Duty of Cooperation, the conversion into System Curators, and functional novation shall produce legal effects opposable erga omnes, binding successors, acquirers, creditors, public authorities, and any third parties intervening in the affected system.

Contractual, corporate, or regulatory clauses that exclude, limit, or postpone the Automatic Duty of Cooperation or functional novation once activated by systemic evidence are unenforceable.

Decisions resulting from the State Machine shall have immediate binding legal force, integrating the immediate object of the legal relationship and conditioning the validity, enforceability, and continuity of obligations upon the monitored technical reality.

The legal validity of obligations subject to the c-ƩCO regime shall be conditioned upon the physical time of the systemic trajectory, and must be continuously confirmed at each monitoring cycle, with any presumption of static validity throughout execution being prohibited.

Systemic temporality as determined by the State Machine shall prevail over contractual deadlines, administrative milestones, or procedural schedules where such temporal frameworks would allow consolidation of trajectories incompatible with reversibility.

Judicial, arbitral, or administrative suspension of the legal effects produced by the State Machine, by Ex-Ante Unenforceability, or by systemic triggers is prohibited, except for technical recognition of a proven failure of the Data Assessment Authority, without automatic suspensive effect.

Loss of the systemic conditions necessary for reversibility shall result in automatic lapse of the legal validity of the legal relationship, independently of formal declaration, judicial liquidation, or manifestation of will by the parties.

Allegations based on vested rights, legitimate expectations, economic-financial equilibrium, or legal certainty are unenforceable where dissociated from systemic temporality and the technical trajectory as assessed.

Continuity of execution shall only be admissible while compatibility of the trajectory with the Safe Operating Space is confirmed in real time, and execution based on temporal presumptions disconnected from biophysical reality shall be null.

Execution of contracts, assets, or operations subject to the c-ƩCO regime depends on continuous maintenance of sufficient financial capacity to ensure full reversal of projected impacts, in accordance with the technical parameters defined in the validated systemic design.

For purposes of the c-ƩCO regime, an agent shall be deemed systemically solvent where it demonstrates financial, technical, and operational capacity to immediately and fully fund the containment, mitigation, restoration, or decommissioning measures required by the monitored systemic trajectory.

Systemic insolvency shall be deemed to exist where an agent, even if financially solvent under traditional criteria, is incapable of financing restoration or reversal of projected or verified systemic impacts.

Reversibility insolvency constitutes an autonomous legal category and is independent of the characterization of civil, corporate, or bankruptcy insolvency under ordinary legal regimes.

Once systemic insolvency is verified, the agent’s available resources, including guarantees, reserves, contributions, or linked financial flows, shall be absolutely prioritized for restoration, mitigation, or safe decommissioning of the affected system.

Claims of any nature shall be subordinated to the priority of systemic restoration, and satisfaction of obligations dissociated from reversibility is prohibited until full recomposition of the affected system is ensured.

Upon verification of reversibility insolvency, competing judicial, arbitral, or administrative enforcement proceedings that would compromise resources allocated to systemic restoration shall be automatically suspended.

Recovery, insolvency, or bankruptcy procedures that permit continuation of operations or liquidation of assets without prior and full recomposition of systemic reversibility are unenforceable vis-à-vis the c-ƩCO regime.

In the event of systemic insolvency, the agent’s assets may be compulsorily allocated, temporarily or definitively, to execution of restoration measures, pursuant to binding technical decision of the Data Assessment Authority or the Technical Curatorial Chamber.

Within its scope of application, the Systemic Governance Statute c-ƩCO shall prevail over contractual, regulatory, or administrative norms that authorize or tolerate execution incompatible with the Safe Operating Space or systemic reversibility.

Licenses, permits, authorizations, or administrative acts shall not produce valid legal effects where their execution entails violation of monitored biophysical limits, and shall be subordinated to technical evidence produced under the c-ƩCO regime.

State discretion is objectively limited by the parameters of the Safe Operating Space, and enactment of normative or administrative acts authorizing trajectories incompatible with habitability, systemic integrity, or reversibility is prohibited.

In the event of conflict between legal or administrative authorization and biophysical reality as assessed through Systemic Proof, the latter shall prevail for purposes of validity, enforceability, and continuity of legal execution.

Normative, administrative, contractual, or decisional acts that directly or indirectly permit transgression of the limits of the Safe Operating Space are void ab initio, producing no indemnificatory, compensatory, or legitimizing legal effects.

Authorizations grounded in political, economic, emergency, or strategic reasons that suspend, relativize, or bypass monitored biophysical limits are unenforceable under the c-ƩCO regime.

Administrative, regulatory, and judicial authorities are bound by technical evidence produced under the c-ƩCO regime and shall refrain from determining or permitting execution incompatible with the Safe Operating Space.

Under the c-ƩCO systemic governance regime, legal liability arises from the integral risk associated with the technical trajectory of the operation, independently of fault, intent, formal unlawfulness, or occurrence of present material damage.

Agents involved in the conception, financing, control, management, or execution of contracts, assets, or operations shall be objectively and jointly liable for systemic effects arising from trajectories incompatible with the Safe Operating Space.

Controllers, directors, managers, and officers shall incur personal liability where, by act or omission, they contribute to maintenance of an unviable systemic trajectory, inertia in the face of technical alerts, or violation of systemic design and maintenance duties.

Identification of sensory fraud, data manipulation, circumvention of systemic triggers, or deliberate non-compliance with Ex-Ante Unenforceability shall result in automatic piercing of the corporate veil, authorizing direct enforcement against the personal assets of those responsible.

The piercing of the corporate veil provided for in this Statute is independent of proof of abuse of legal personality under traditional regimes, being sufficient the technical evidence of relevant systemic violation or attempt to neutralize the c-ƩCO regime.

Integral risk liability shall extend to all agents who, possessing technical knowledge of the risk trajectory, have directly or indirectly contributed to its maintenance, financing, enablement, or concealment.

Systemic co-liability is established where agents who have a technical, contractual, or functional duty to act fail to adopt measures capable of interrupting or correcting trajectories incompatible with reversibility.

Contractual, corporate, or insurance clauses that limit, exclude, or mitigate integral risk liability arising from systemic violation are unenforceable under the c-ƩCO regime.

Integral risk liability shall prevail over special liability limitation regimes, regulatory incentives, administrative authorizations, or asset segregation structures incompatible with preservation of the affected system.

Violation of systemic limits, maintenance of trajectories incompatible with reversibility, or noncompliance with technical triggers shall result in automatic affection of assets, guarantees, or linked reserves, mandatorily allocating them to containment, restoration, or safe decommissioning of the affected system.

Automatic asset affection has a curatorial, preventive, and functional nature and does not constitute criminal sanction or confiscation, and shall not be used for revenue-raising, ex post compensation, or punitive purposes.

A predictive trajectory fine shall apply where technical evidence demonstrates that the agent’s execution will, predictably, lead to violation of the Safe Operating Space, independently of occurrence of present material damage.

The predictive fine is autonomous and independent of application of other sanctions, characterization of formal unlawfulness, or assessment of fault, and shall be calculated based on projected systemic risk and incremental cost of reversibility.

Serious breach of systemic design, maintenance, or cooperation duties shall result in definitive perclusion of Execution Rights, preventing the agent from conducting new operations or enforcing prestations within the affected system.

Exclusion of habitability is the sanction by which projects, operations, or agents are permanently barred from operating within a given system, ecosystem, or territory where structural inviability of their trajectory is established.

In addition to operational sanctions, the agent shall be liable for intergenerational indemnification corresponding to the loss of future access to resources, ecosystem services, or systemic capacities irreversibly depleted or degraded.

Intergenerational indemnification shall be calculated based on the systemic value of exhausted resources, the estimated time for natural or technical recovery, and the loss of future agency imposed upon subsequent generations.

Sanctions imposed under this Statute, as well as records of systemic proof and critical state transitions, shall be entered into a public, immutable, and auditable database, producing effects of impediment and traceability.

The public registry of sanctions and systemic evidence shall be opposable erga omnes and shall constitute an automatic impediment to contracting, licensing, or financing of excluded agents, in accordance with the parameters defined in this Statute.

Agreements, settlements, or waivers intended to exclude, mitigate, or postpone application of systemic sanctions provided for in this Chapter are unenforceable.

Under the c-ƩCO systemic governance regime, events related to climate instability, resource depletion, environmental degradation, or breach of biophysical limits shall not constitute force majeure or fortuitous events, as they form part of the intrinsic risk set of the monitored activity.

The risks referred to in the preceding Article shall be mandatorily incorporated into systemic design, modeled within the algorithmic causality nexus, and fully provisioned within financial reversibility capacity, and their legal externalization is prohibited.

Intervention by third parties shall not exclude liability where a systemic contribution nexus exists among conducts, particularly in cases involving shared ecosystems, critical infrastructure, or common biophysical limits.

Co-liability is established where an agent who possesses technical capacity or functional duty fails to foresee, mitigate, or interrupt synergistic impacts caused by third parties within the same affected system.

Evidence produced through Systemic Proof and certified sensorial data shall prevail over unilateral declarations, ex post estimative reports, economic opinions, or narrative reconstructions of facts.

Challenges grounded in non-technical arguments, value judgments, or generic allegations of reasonableness or economic convenience shall neither suspend nor invalidate the legal effects derived from certified sensorial evidence.

Political acts, administrative decisions, legislative changes, or exceptional authorizations permitting transgression of the Safe Operating Space shall not constitute exemptions from liability nor preclude application of the mechanisms provided in this Statute.

In the event of conflict between state authorization and biophysical reality as assessed through Systemic Proof, the latter shall prevail for purposes of liability, validity, and continuity of legal execution.

Allegations of good faith, technical ignorance, or legitimate reliance are ineffective to exclude liability where the risk trajectory is objectively identified by certified sensorial data and duly recorded in the system.

The duty to monitor sensorial data, alerts, and state transitions is continuous and non-delegable, and invocation of good faith grounded in voluntary ignorance, inattention, or informational omission is not admissible.

Contractual, corporate, or regulatory clauses that expand exemptions from liability in conflict with the principles of predictive governance and biophysical supremacy are unenforceable under the cƩCO regime.

The Systemic Risk Management Fund is the financial instrument intended to ensure, in an immediate and binding manner, the resources necessary for containment, mitigation, restoration, or safe decommissioning of operations subject to the c-ƩCO regime.

Fund resources shall be maintained under algorithmic custody, within immutable and auditable technical infrastructure, and their release shall be conditioned exclusively upon systemic triggers validated by the Data Assessment Authority.

Governance of the Fund shall be exercised on a tripartite basis, comprising:

Fund resources are purpose-bound and exclusively allocated to execution of technical measures of correction, restoration, mitigation, or safe decommissioning, and their use for ex post indemnification or compensatory purposes dissociated from reversibility is prohibited.

Upon verification of an Orange State, Red State, or activation of the Curatorial Trigger, execution of Fund expenditures shall occur autonomously, directly, and automatically, without need for authorization by the responsible agent or judicial order.

In critical states of the State Machine, human management of the Fund shall be automatically suspended, and algorithmic execution bound to predefined technical parameters shall prevail.

Any attempt to use Fund resources for payment of labor, tax, financial, or civil obligations not directly linked to restoration or containment of the systemic trajectory is null and void.

Fund resources shall not be subject to attachment, seizure, set-off, or enforcement by creditors, remaining fully allocated to the curatorial purpose defined in this Statute.

All Fund transactions shall be recorded in immutable technical infrastructure, ensuring traceability, transparency, and public auditability of release and allocation decisions.

Adherence to the c-ƩCO systemic governance regime depends upon prior constitution of a Mandatory Initial Reserve sufficient to fully cover projected costs of containment, mitigation, restoration, or safe decommissioning of the operation, as defined in the validated systemic design.

The Mandatory Initial Reserve shall consist of financial resources or highly liquid assets immediately mobilizable, including direct allocation to the Systemic Risk Management Fund or equivalent algorithmic custody provided for in this Statute.

The Initial Reserve shall be periodically recalculated based on evolution of the systemic trajectory, and the agent shall make supplementary contributions whenever the Data Assessment Authority identifies an increase in projected reversibility costs.

Initiation or continuation of any operation subject to the c-ƩCO regime without full constitution and maintenance of the Mandatory Initial Reserve is prohibited, and execution performed in its absence or insufficiency is legally ineffective.

Valid constitution of the Initial Reserve constitutes an essential condition for entry into the c-ƩCO regime, and formal submission unaccompanied by the corresponding financial reversibility backing shall produce no legal effects.

Initial release and continued maintenance of Execution Rights depend upon continuous demonstration of sufficiency of the Initial Reserve and its compatibility with the technical parameters defined in the systemic design.

Resources comprising the Initial Reserve are preferentially allocated to the curatorial purpose and shall not be subject to set-off, attachment, or enforcement for obligations dissociated from systemic reversibility.

Contractual, insurance, or financial guarantees that fail to ensure immediate liquidity and material sufficiency for full reversal of projected impacts are unenforceable, and the requirement of effectively mobilizable capital shall prevail.

Restoration providers are technical entities essential to c-ƩCO systemic governance, entrusted with direct execution of containment, mitigation, restoration, or safe decommissioning measures when triggers provided for in this Statute are activated.

Only providers previously certified as to technical capacity, operational integrity, and compatibility with the Data Assessment Authority may act as restoration providers, and they must be pre-approved during the systemic design phase of the contract.

Prior approval entails automatic and full adherence of the provider to the c-ƩCO regime, subjecting it to predictive governance rules, Systemic Proof, the State Machine, and sanctions provided for in this Statute.

The restoration provider assumes the legal position of Faithful Curator of the Trajectory, and shall orient its conduct primarily toward preservation or restoration of systemic habitability, even to the detriment of its own economic interests or those of the contracting party.

Payment to the restoration provider shall be conditioned upon objective validation of technical results through Systemic Proof, and remuneration based solely on formal execution or documentary compliance is prohibited.

The provider shall be subject to algorithmic subordination, accepting that service orders, schedules, scopes, and priorities may be automatically adjusted by the Data Assessment Authority in response to evolution of the systemic trajectory.

Upon activation of the Curatorial Trigger or verification of an Orange or Red State, execution of restoration services shall occur directly and autonomously, with immediate release of resources from the Systemic Risk Management Fund, independently of authorization by the responsible agent.

The provider shall be jointly liable for damages arising from insufficient, delayed, fraudulent, or technically inadequate performance where its conduct compromises reversibility or restoration of the affected system.

Substitution of a pre-approved provider may be immediately determined by the Technical Curatorial Chamber in cases of:

The systemic design shall provide for a contingency list containing at least three alternative providers previously certified, capable of immediately assuming execution in the event of provider substitution.

In the absence of an available pre-approved provider, the Technical Curatorial Chamber may designate an emergency provider, whose engagement shall be mandatory, with costs debited directly from the Systemic Risk Management Fund.

Where the provider holds guarantees or reserves linked to the system, such guarantees or reserves may be automatically affected to ensure continuity of restoration, pursuant to the systemic asset affection regime.

Execution of contracts, assets, or operations subject to the c-ƩCO regime shall comply with a mandatory order of systemic activation, and inversion, suppression, or anticipation of technical or legal phases is prohibited.

Valid system initialization requires, cumulatively:

Each execution stage is legally conditioned upon technical validation of the immediately preceding stage, and acts performed outside the technical–legal sequence defined in this Statute are null.

Parallel, fragmented, or dissociated execution of obligations, financial flows, or technical operations that circumvent the State Machine, Execution Rights, or systemic triggers is prohibited.

Contractual, administrative, or operational acts performed outside the Technical Execution Chain are legally ineffective vis-à-vis the c-ƩCO regime and produce no validating, consolidating, or prescriptive effects.

All relevant events within the Technical Execution Chain shall be recorded in immutable technical logs, ensuring full traceability of decisions, state transitions, executions, and interventions.

Technical records of the system shall remain permanently auditable by the Data Assessment Authority, the Technical Curatorial Chamber, and competent supervisory bodies, and suppression, alteration, or concealment thereof is prohibited.

Termination of contracts or operations subject to the c-ƩCO regime shall only produce legal effects upon technical validation of secure termination, confirming systemic stability or restoration of the Viability Baseline.

Merely formal termination that does not correspond to effective stabilization or restoration of the affected system is null, and obligations shall subsist while unreversed impacts persist.

Deliberate or negligent disruption of the Technical Execution Chain gives rise to objective and joint liability, without prejudice to application of systemic sanctions provided in this Statute.

Contracts, assets, or operations in progress may be submitted to the c-ƩCO regime through express party adhesion or by subsequent incorporation clause, producing prospective effects as of validation of the systemic design.

Subsequent submission to the c-ƩCO regime shall not entail sanctioning retroactivity or reopening of extinguished obligations, without prejudice to immediate application of predictive governance mechanisms to future trajectories.

Adhesion to the c-ƩCO regime may occur through voluntary party manifestation, contractual incorporation, statutory adhesion, or regulatory submission, provided that the design, solvency, and monitoring requirements set forth in this Statute are observed.

Once adhesion is effected, the c-ƩCO regime becomes fully binding, and subsequent allegations of ignorance, normative incompatibility, or change of will by the parties are unenforceable.

The c-ƩCO regime is compatible with arbitration, state jurisdiction, and hybrid dispute resolution mechanisms, without prejudice to immediate application of technical triggers, the State Machine, and systemic asset affection measures.

Initiation of arbitration, judicial action, or administrative proceeding does not suspend, limit, or invalidate automatic legal effects arising from Systemic Proof, Ex-Ante Unenforceability, or the Curatorial Trigger.

In cases of insolvency, recovery, or bankruptcy of the agent, obligations of containment, restoration, or safe decommissioning shall prevail, maintaining affection of assets linked to systemic reversibility.

Resources affected to the Systemic Risk Management Fund and to Reversibility Reserves shall not integrate the common insolvency estate and shall have absolute priority for purposes of stabilization of the affected system.

The c-ƩCO regime may be recognized and applied transnationally as a contractual clause, regulatory standard, binding soft law, or Model Law, regardless of forum, applicable law, or parties’ domicile.

The c-ƩCO regime admits interoperability with equivalent legal, regulatory, technical, or algorithmic systems, provided that supremacy of Systemic Proof, predictive governance, and biophysical limits is ensured.

In the event of normative, interpretive, or operational conflict, the solution that best preserves reversibility, habitability, and integrity of the affected system shall prevail, in accordance with the structural principles of this Statute.

This Statute constitutes an international Model Law of systemic governance and may be adopted, incorporated, or referenced as a legal, regulatory, contractual, or institutional standard, in whole or in part, pursuant to the applicable legal order.

In the absence of specific rules, this Statute may be used as a supplementary, interpretive, or integrative source for resolution of disputes involving predictive governance, systemic risks, legal automation, and biophysical limits.

Invalidity or inapplicability of a specific provision shall not compromise validity, effectiveness, or applicability of the remaining provisions, and interpretation preserving systemic coherence and purpose shall prevail.

Waiver, derogation, or mitigation of the structural principles of c-ƩCO systemic governance through private agreement, administrative act, or judicial decision dissociated from assessed biophysical reality is prohibited.

This Statute shall be interpreted in a finalistic, systemic, and evolutive manner, accompanying scientific, technical, and technological advancement, provided that principles of predictive governance and biophysical supremacy are preserved.

This Statute shall enter into force on the date of its formal adoption by the entity, contract, institution, or regime that incorporates it, producing legal effects as of validation of the corresponding systemic design.

The Threshold Function Protocol (TFP v1.1) is hereby established as a binding technical-prudential instrument and constitutes an integral and normative component of the c-ECO Systemic Governance Statute.

§1º The TFP shall be construed, for all legal purposes, as prudential execution infrastructure, governing the non-discretionary conditions of lawful economic and contractual execution in the presence of systemic, cumulative, and potentially irreversible risk.

§2º The TFP does not constitute:
I — a sanctioning or punitive regime;
II — a substantive environmental or social norm;
III — a licensing, permitting, or administrative authorization framework;
IV — an ex post liability, remediation, or compensation mechanism.

§3º The TFP governs exclusively the ex ante legal, financial, and contractual response to the measurable approach toward pre-existing material thresholds, without defining, creating, modifying, selecting, or negotiating such thresholds.

§4º For interpretive and enforcement purposes, the TFP shall be treated as prudential market infrastructure, functionally analogous to capital and liquidity buffers, early-intervention or resolution triggers, and automatic execution-conditioning mechanisms recognized in financial, insolvency, and supervisory law, without altering their legal nature or importing external regulatory regimes.

§5º The TFP shall produce binding legal, financial, and contractual effects ex lege and ex ante upon incorporation by reference into any contract, license, concession, institutional arrangement, financing instrument, or governance regime adopting the c-ECO framework, without the need for further regulatory act, administrative approval, or judicial validation.

§6º The TFP is self-executing upon incorporation and shall not depend on subsequent regulation, discretionary act, interpretive guidance, or implementing measure for the activation of its classifications, triggers, or effects. Failure to adopt implementing measures or internal procedures shall not suspend, delay, or neutralize the operation of the TFP.

§7º The TFP shall operate exclusively ex ante, conditioning the continuing legal feasibility of execution during periods in which reversibility, mitigation, or safe reconfiguration remains materially possible, and shall not attach legal consequences to past conduct.

§8º In case of interpretive doubt, the TFP shall be interpreted in accordance with its prudential, ex ante, and non-sanctioning nature, with priority given to the preservation of systemic reversibility and the prevention of irreversible harm, strategic delay, forum shopping, or circumvention.

§9º The TFP constitutes a structural condition of lawful execution for all instruments incorporating the c-ECO framework, and economic or contractual activity may subsist only insofar as its conditions remain satisfied.

The purpose of the Threshold Function Protocol (TFP) is to define, calibrate, and operationalize objective trigger conditions for systemic governance responses in contexts involving cumulative, non-linear, or potentially irreversible risk.

§1º The TFP governs exclusively the ex ante legal, financial, and contractual response to the measurable approach toward pre-existing material limits, including biophysical, financial, institutional, or infrastructural thresholds.

§2º The TFP shall operate solely on the basis of certified data and forward-looking risk trajectories, and shall not assess fault, intent, compliance history, or past conduct.

§3º The application of the TFP shall be cumulative and complementary, and shall not replace, waive, derogate from, or suspend compliance with any pre-existing regulatory, environmental, administrative, contractual, or supervisory obligation.

§4º The TFP does not create new substantive duties of environmental protection, social conduct, or regulatory compliance, and shall not be construed as a licensing, permitting, or approval mechanism.

§5º The TFP conditions exclusively the continuing legal feasibility of execution, defining the prudential circumstances under which economic and contractual activity may subsist in light of systemic risk trajectories.

§6º The operation of the TFP shall not be construed as interference with contractual autonomy, but as an ex ante condition voluntarily incorporated to preserve systemic reversibility, asset integrity, and legal feasibility of execution.

The activation of systemic governance mechanisms under the Threshold Function Protocol (TFP) shall be governed by the following Trigger Function:

Γ = f(P, ΔV, σ, Lr)

§1º For the purposes of this Protocol, the variables of the Trigger Function shall be defined as follows:
I — Position (P): the current distance of an asset, operation, or system from the applicable Safe Operating Space (SOS) limit;
II — Velocity (ΔV): the temporal rate and direction of deterioration or improvement of the monitored parameter;
III — Uncertainty (σ): the statistical confidence interval associated with the sensors, models, or measurement methodologies employed;
IV — Reversibility Liquidity (Lr): the ratio between immediately mobilizable resources and the projected technical cost of containment, mitigation, restoration, or safe decommissioning.

§2º The Trigger Function shall be applied in an automatic, continuous, and non-discretionary manner, exclusively on the basis of certified data, without normative interpretation or case-by-case judgment.

§3º The output of the Trigger Function (Γ) shall constitute a normalized prudential score, expressed on a scale from 0 to 100, monotonic in relation to systemic risk, and calculated through sector-specific normalization of the variables P, ΔV, σ, and Lr, in accordance with parameters defined in the applicable Technical Annex.

§4º No variable or score shall, in isolation, authorize legal or financial effects. Prudential classification shall be systemic and integrated, resulting exclusively from the combined application of the Trigger Function.

§5º Statistical uncertainty (σ) shall operate as a conservative prudential factor, reducing the score Γ whenever signal reliability is insufficient to guarantee reversibility, and shall never expand operational margins or delay trigger activation.

§6º The burden of precision, data adequacy, and evidentiary reliability shall rest with the risk operator, asset holder, or executing entity.

The calibration and application of the Trigger Function under the Threshold Function Protocol (TFP) shall observe the Prudential Asymmetry Principle.

§1º For the purposes of this Protocol, errors resulting from early or conservative trigger activation shall be deemed economically reversible.

§2º Errors resulting from delay, omission, under-activation, or inertia in the presence of measurable systemic risk shall be deemed biophysically irreversible.

§3º Statistical uncertainty (σ) shall operate as a protective and anticipatory prudential factor, automatically reducing permissible operational margins whenever signal reliability is insufficient to guarantee reversibility.

§4º Uncertainty shall never justify the expansion of execution rights, the postponement of trigger activation, or the relaxation of prudential constraints.

§5º For prudential purposes, uncertainty (σ) shall be interpreted conservatively and, unless demonstrated otherwise through certified data of equal or greater reliability, shall be treated as equivalent to a minimum three-standard-deviation safety factor (3σ).

§6º Insufficient statistical precision shall automatically result in prudential reclassification to the Amber Band or Red Band, as applicable, without discretionary assessment.

§7º The burden of precision, evidentiary adequacy, and risk measurement reliability shall rest exclusively with the operator, asset holder, or executing entity.

§8º The Prudential Asymmetry Principle shall prevail over any interpretive approach that seeks to balance reversible economic inconvenience against irreversible systemic harm.

Results of the Trigger Function (Γ ∈ [0,100]) shall be classified into prudential risk bands producing automatic ex ante contractual and financial effects, without discretionary determination.

§1º The prudential bands shall be as follows:
I — Green Band (80–100): nominal operation;
II — Amber Band (60–79): heightened vigilance, with mandatory monthly technical audit, reinforced reporting obligations, and enhanced guarantees, as further specified in the applicable Technical Annex;
III — Red Band (40–59): Safe Mode, including automatic execution reconfiguration and retention measures;
IV — Black Band (<40): Restoration First, including activation of External Intervention (IEX).

§2º Entry into a prudential band shall produce automatic effects exclusively within the scope of this Protocol and the applicable Technical Annex, and shall not depend on any administrative, regulatory, judicial, or discretionary act.

§3º The effects associated with each prudential band shall be those previously agreed and specified in the applicable Technical Annex (Trigger Catalogue). No prudential classification shall create new obligations; it shall activate pre-contracted effects.

§4º The Red Band (Safe Mode) shall not constitute default, breach, termination event, or credit impairment. Safe Mode constitutes a prudential reconfiguration of execution aimed at preserving the asset, the contract, and systemic reversibility.

§5º Any contractual provision providing for default, acceleration, termination, cross-default, or enforcement solely by reason of entry into Safe Mode shall be deemed inapplicable to the extent it conflicts with the operation of this Protocol.

§6º The Black Band (Restoration First) shall imply the automatic activation of IEX and the conversion of guarantees strictly to the extent necessary to achieve certified systemic stabilization, as further defined in Article 220 and the applicable Technical Annex.

The activation of External Intervention (IEX) under the Black Band shall be governed by the principle of proportionality.

§1º External Intervention shall be strictly limited to the measures technically necessary to achieve certified systemic stabilization and prevent irreversible harm.

§2º The conversion, allocation, or activation of guarantees under IEX shall occur solely to the extent required to restore reversibility capacity, and shall not constitute confiscation, punitive deprivation, or expropriation.

§3º External Intervention shall be temporary, conditional, and continuously reviewable, and shall cease automatically upon verified re-entry into a higher prudential band, in accordance with this Protocol.

The application of the Threshold Function Protocol (TFP) shall observe strict functional separation of powers, ensuring independence, integrity, and non-discretionary operation across all prudential functions.

§1º Data Custodians shall be responsible exclusively for data collection, integrity, traceability, certification, and continuity, and shall be expressly prohibited from normative, interpretive, or decisional functions.

§2º The Calibration Council shall be competent solely to define sectoral parameters, weights, scales, bands, and methodological updates applicable to the Trigger Function, without authority to deliberate on, modify, or intervene in individual assets, projects, or contracts.

§3º The Arbitral Interface shall be strictly limited to the technical verification of certified material error, fraud, or sensor or methodological failure, and shall not review ecological, economic, political, or strategic merit.

Any arbitral or technical review under the Threshold Function Protocol (TFP) shall be strictly limited in scope and shall not suspend, delay, or neutralize the prudential effects produced by this Protocol.

§1º Review shall be admissible exclusively for the purpose of verifying certified material error, fraud, or demonstrable sensor or methodological failure affecting the application of the Trigger Function.

§2º Review of ecological, economic, political, strategic, or policy merit is expressly prohibited, as is any reassessment of prudential calibration, risk bands, or systemic classifications.

§3º The initiation of arbitral or judicial proceedings shall not produce automatic suspensive effect over prudential classifications, trigger activation, or execution reconfiguration measures.

§4º No interim relief, injunction, stay, or provisional measure shall be granted for the purpose of postponing or circumventing the operation of the TFP, except in cases of certified material error as defined in §1º.

§5º This Article shall be interpreted so as to prevent forum shopping, strategic delay, or procedural abuse in the face of measurable systemic risk.

The Threshold Function Protocol (TFP) shall operate as ex ante prudential infrastructure, producing objective and non-discretionary classifications that condition the continuing legal feasibility of economic and contractual execution in the presence of systemic risk trajectories.

§1º The TFP does not intervene in market operations or allocate policy merit; it conditions execution through automatic, continuous, and certified-data-based application of the Trigger Function and the prudential bands.

§2º The TFP may be implemented through automated systems, provided that all outputs remain fully auditable, traceable, and reproducible from certified data and approved methodologies.

§3º Any integration with algorithmic or artificial intelligence systems shall be limited to monitoring, detection, forecasting, anomaly identification, and alerting functions, and shall not confer autonomous decisional authority over prudential classifications or contractual effects.

§4º Automated operation shall preserve, at all times:
I — auditability and explainability of outputs;
II — traceability and integrity of data lineage;
III — reversibility safeguards and conservative fallback in case of certified system failure;
IV — human supervisory capacity to verify integrity, detect failure, and initiate corrective procedures without suspensive effect.

The Threshold Function Protocol (TFP) may be incorporated and operated through distinct legal and institutional forms, without affecting its prudential nature or non-discretionary operation.

§1º Incorporation of the TFP may occur through:
I — contractual clauses or execution conditions;
II — institutional or organizational licenses;
III — formal adherence regimes associated with systemic governance frameworks.

§2º Incorporation under this Article shall enable continuous prudential monitoring of the relevant assets, operations, or contractual relationships, including automated data collection and analysis, in accordance with this Protocol and the applicable Technical Annex.

§3º Continuous monitoring may be supported by algorithmic or artificial intelligence systems, provided that such systems operate exclusively as technical instruments for detection, measurement, forecasting, and alerting, without autonomous decisional authority.

§4º The c-ECO Seal constitutes a prudential signaling mechanism indicating valid incorporation of the TFP and ongoing compliance with its monitoring requirements. The Seal does not constitute regulatory certification, licensing approval, or endorsement by any public authority.

§5º The presence, suspension, or withdrawal of the c-ECO Seal shall not create new legal obligations, modify contractual duties, or substitute regulatory compliance, and shall reflect exclusively the prudential status derived from the operation of the TFP.

§6º Licenses, adherence regimes, or institutional authorizations associated with incorporation of the TFP and the c-ECO Seal shall be granted for a fixed term of one year, subject to renewal upon verification of continued compliance with the requirements of this Protocol.

§7º In the event of force majeure, accidents, natural disasters, or externally caused disruptions affecting compliance with monitoring or operational requirements, the license or c-ECO Seal shall not be automatically suspended or revoked, provided that the operator or licensed entity:
I — promptly notifies the competent monitoring or licensing body of the occurrence;
II — discloses, in good faith, the nature, scope, and estimated systemic impact of the event;
III — immediately adopts reasonable mitigation and corrective measures aimed at preserving systemic reversibility;
IV — preserves data integrity and maintains full cooperation with monitoring and audit processes;
V — complies with the provisional conditions and remediation timelines defined in the applicable Technical Annex.

§8º The incorporation, operation, and continuous monitoring of the TFP under this Article shall be carried out in accordance with the applicable Technical Annexes and Operational Manuals, which are hereby recognized as binding technical instruments, incorporated by reference, governing data collection, certification, quality assurance, auditability, reporting, and procedural integrity.

§9º Compliance with the Operational Manuals, including the certification of technical agents, quality assurance procedures, and audit requirements, shall constitute a condition of prudential validity for the incorporation and continued operation of the TFP and the maintenance of the c-ECO Seal.

Re-entry into a higher prudential band shall be conditional upon certified proof of sustained stabilization and restored reversibility capacity, and shall not be granted by discretion, negotiation, or temporary performance.

§1º Re-entry shall require cumulative proof of:
I — certified inversion of the trajectory risk score for at least two consecutive observation periods;
II — compliance with the minimum sectoral observation period, ranging from six to twelve months, as defined in the applicable Technical Annex;
III — recomposition of Reversibility Liquidity (Lr), adjusted to the revised risk scenario and independently verifiable through certified data.

§2º The burden of proof shall rest with the operator, asset holder, or executing entity, which shall provide complete documentation and certified evidence of compliance with the re-entry conditions.

§3º Re-entry shall not have retroactive effect and shall not neutralize prior prudential measures, but shall condition the prospective restoration of execution rights in accordance with this Protocol.

All measurements, classifications, triggers, and effects produced under the Threshold Function Protocol (TFP) shall be fully recorded and auditable.

§1º Records shall be maintained in a manner that enables complete historical reconstruction of:
I — the certified data inputs and methodologies applied;
II — the calculation of the Trigger Function and resulting prudential band;
III — the automatic effects activated and the timing of their activation;
IV — any certified corrections, error findings, or integrity incidents.

§2º Audit trails shall preserve data lineage, integrity checks, access logs, and version control for sensors, models, parameters, and calibration settings, as defined in the applicable Technical Annex.

§3º Records, traceability, and audit trails shall be generated, maintained, and preserved in accordance with the applicable Operational Manuals and Technical Annexes, which shall define procedural standards for data certification, integrity verification, and historical reconstruction.

The operation of the Threshold Function Protocol (TFP) shall be subject to periodic independent technical audit, in accordance with the applicable Technical Annex.

§1º Independent audits shall verify:
I — data integrity, continuity, and certification;
II — sensor performance and methodological coherence;
III — correct application of the Trigger Function, prudential bands, and automatic effects;
IV — compliance with auditability, traceability, and reversibility requirements.

§2º Independent audits shall be technical in nature and shall not assess policy merit, regulatory compliance, or discretionary decision-making.

§3º Independent audits shall include verification of procedural compliance with the Operational Manuals, including certification requirements, quality assurance protocols, and audit readiness conditions.

Prudential indicators, classifications, and systemic status derived from the operation of the Threshold Function Protocol (TFP) shall be subject to transparency and public reporting requirements proportionate to their systemic relevance.

§1º Public reporting shall occur at regular intervals and shall disclose, at a minimum:
I — the applicable prudential band and its evolution over time;
II — the occurrence of trigger activation, Safe Mode, or External Intervention (IEX);
III — the existence, scope, and results of independent audits.

§2º Independent audits under Article 227 shall be conducted at least annually, without prejudice to additional audits triggered by material incidents, certified anomalies, or systemic risk escalation.

§3º Disclosure under this Article shall respect legitimate confidentiality constraints, including commercially sensitive information, security considerations, and data protection requirements, as defined in the applicable Technical Annex.

§4º Transparency obligations under the TFP shall not be construed as public enforcement, regulatory reporting, or admission of liability, and shall serve exclusively to preserve systemic credibility and institutional trust.

§5º Public reporting and transparency mechanisms under this Article shall be structured in a manner compatible with internationally recognized sustainability and risk disclosure frameworks, including IFRS S2 and TNFD, as specified in the applicable Technical Annex..

The methodologies, parameters, weights, and technical specifications of the Threshold Function Protocol (TFP) shall be subject to periodic review in light of scientific, technological, or systemic developments.

§1º Reviews under this Article shall aim to preserve methodological coherence, prudential conservatism, and consistency with the objectives of this Protocol.

§2º Substantial updates affecting the operation of the Trigger Function or prudential bands shall be preceded by technical public consultation, as defined in the applicable Technical Annex.

§3º Updates shall preserve predictability, proportionality, and non-retroactivity, and shall not affect prudential classifications or effects already produced.

The governance, supervision, and technical revision of the Threshold Function Protocol (TFP) shall be entrusted to a multidisciplinary Technical Committee, in accordance with the c-ECO Systemic Governance Statute and the applicable Technical Annex.

§1º The Technical Committee shall be responsible for:
I — overseeing methodological integrity and audit readiness;
II — supervising calibration updates and technical annexes;
III — ensuring interoperability, traceability, and systemic coherence of the TFP framework.

§2º The Technical Committee shall not deliberate on, modify, suspend, or intervene in individual assets, contracts, projects, or prudential classifications.

§3º The Technical Committee shall supervise and validate:
I — the certification and recertification of Data Custodians;
II — the certification, designation, and supervision of Restoration Providers;
III — the approval, revision, and technical coherence of Operational Manuals incorporated under this Protocol.

In cases of interpretive divergence, methodological uncertainty, or technical dispute concerning the operation of the Threshold Function Protocol (TFP), an independent technical opinion may be requested.

§1º Independent technical opinions shall be limited to the clarification of technical, scientific, or methodological aspects relevant to the application of this Protocol and shall not assess legal merit, policy considerations, or discretionary judgment.

§2º Independent technical opinions shall be incorporated into the prudential record for transparency and audit purposes and shall not produce suspensive effect over classifications, trigger activation, or prudential effects already in force.

The Threshold Function Protocol (TFP) shall enter into force together with the c-ECO Systemic Governance Statute and shall produce binding ex ante effects across all instruments, arrangements, and regimes in which it is incorporated, in accordance with its nature as prudential infrastructure.