The Root of the Demand: Two Limitative Theorems and a Conditional Forcing Result for Answerable Inquiry

This paper investigates the root of bounded verdict agreement in the Identity–Persistence Program. It proves that boundedness alone cannot force answerability or verdict agreement, using a finite countermodel whose outputs cannot be false. It then derives that answerability forces re-identifiable content and evaluator-relative admissibility. The evaluator-elimination problem is resolved by quotienting its unbound regime variable: without a shared regime it is refuted by countermodel, while under a co-declared standard it closes by derivation. The remaining unit is co-declaration, the holding of a standard in common, which the paper treats as a necessary but unforced condition of shared formal reason. The result is a conditional forcing claim: bounded inquiry, answerable under a co-declared standard, forces the verdict demand.