Every Rule Reinstates Its Own Failure

This paper does not advance a substantive theory but instead performs a structural operation on the conditions of interpretation, rule application, and semantic determination. Beginning from foundationalist assumptions in classical semantics, it argues that the determinacy of meaning cannot be secured by any underlying grounding structure. Interpretation is therefore not the convergence of a single trajectory, but a distribution across multiple co-present interpretive paths. On this basis, the paper introduces three core principles: non-collapsing attention (A), rule underdetermination (R), and recursive instability of frameworks (D). Together, they entail that no interpretation system yields a uniquely fixed point or fully determinate rule-selection mechanism. Semantic outcomes are thus structurally non-individuated rather than merely epistemically uncertain. The argument is further extended through self-application: when the system is applied to itself, it does not stabilise into a final theoretical standpoint but remains embedded within its own updating dynamics. This indicates that evaluation and judgment are never external to the framework they assess, but are always already internal to its structural operation. The main theorem of global non-individuation follows: there exists no interpretive trajectory satisfying stability, uniqueness, and rule-closure simultaneously. Finally, the paper distinguishes local stability from global indeterminacy, arguing that while reliable local distinctions remain possible, they do not depend on any ultimate grounding structure but arise within structurally non-closed systems.