Mandate Integrity is a structural question before it is a governance question.
The method is designed to answer one bounded question: does the evidence support the authority and dependency structure behind the decision being proposed?
Establish the object of review.
We identify the mandate, decision, intended authority, relevant actors, and review boundary. A vague object produces a vague verdict.
Reconstruct decision lineage.
We map how authority moves from origin to execution: who authorized what, through which layer, under which assumption, and with what delegation.
Stress the dependencies.
We look for circular authorization, missing authority, unsupported delegation, contradictory assumptions, and dependencies that make a system validate its own premise.
Separate finding from interpretation.
Findings are tied to submitted evidence. Interpretive claims are identified as such. Unknowns remain unknown rather than being filled with confidence theater.
Deliver a bounded verdict.
The outcome is one of three states: PASS — supported within scope; FAIL — material structural contradiction identified; UNRESOLVED — evidence insufficient to establish validity.
Mandate Integrity Object.
For L1 and above, the core audit record can be represented as a structured artifact containing the mandate boundary, authority boundary, lineage, dependencies, findings, verdict, confidence, and limitations. It is a deliverable format—not a certification.