No Legal Claim Beyond Its Carrier: Claim-Status Warrant under AASC

Legal systems distinguish relevance, authentication, admissibility, weight, burden, expert qualification, chain of custody, and permissible use. A recurrent failure cuts across those categories: a claim is reported at a legal or evidentiary status stronger than its carrier licenses. Authentication becomes substantive truth; admissibility becomes proof of the asserted legal target; expert credentials become method reliability; similarity becomes source identity; machine output becomes evidentiary warrant; witness agreement becomes independent corroboration; and narrative coherence becomes causation. These are not merely ordinary evidentiary errors. They are illicit claim-status promotions. This paper develops the legal-domain instantiation of the Admissibility And Standing Constraint (AASC) / Universal Exactness Audit Protocol (UEAP) architecture. The central object is claim-status warrant: permission, under a declared jurisdictional and procedural ledger, to report a legal or evidentiary claim at a requested status class. Evidence law supplies the domain standards; AASC supplies the cross-status audit grammar that prevents reports from exceeding their target, carrier, alternative-disposition, laundering, and report-preservation conditions. The paper gives a doctrine-facing warrant architecture rather than a replacement for legal doctrine. It develops legal proof as status-preserving construction: evidence, narratives, probabilities, explanations, expert opinions, and machine outputs may operate as carriers, but a legal proof-report is warranted only when the transition from evidence to report preserves target, carrier, burden, alternative disposition, factfinder allocation, and report limits. The paper also develops a status-vector model, a local-promotion graph, an alternative-disposition account adapted to burdens and factfinder roles, a legal laundering taxonomy, evidence-network rules, a registry protocol, and a court-facing checklist. Worked audits cover cartridge-case source attribution, expert overstatement, authentication, causation, and AI/machine-generated evidence. The practical rule is simple: no legal claim should be reported at a strength greater than its carrier permits.