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

No Legal Claim Beyond Its Carrier: Claim-Status Warrant under AASC This paper develops a legal-domain application of the Admissibility And Standing Constraint (AASC) and Universal Exactness Audit Protocol (UEAP), introducing a formal framework for evaluating when a legal or evidentiary claim may be reported at a given status without exceeding the warrant supplied by its supporting carrier. The central thesis is that many evidentiary and legal failures arise not from false evidence, but from illicit claim-status promotion: situations in which authentication is reported as truth, admissibility as proof, expert qualification as methodological reliability, similarity as source identity, machine output as evidentiary warrant, or narrative coherence as causation. The paper argues that no legal claim should be reported at a strength greater than the carrier that supports it. To address this problem, the manuscript develops the concept of claim-status warrant, a status-preserving audit framework that evaluates legal claims through five conditions: target fixation, carrier adequacy, alternative disposition, laundering exclusion, and report preservation. The resulting architecture provides a doctrine-facing audit protocol rather than a replacement for existing legal doctrine. The paper introduces: A legal status-vector model for evidentiary and legal claims. A local-promotion graph for detecting illicit status transitions. A taxonomy of legal laundering routes. Alternative-disposition analysis adapted to burdens and factfinder roles. Evidence-network and witness-convergence audits. Forensic source-attribution auditing. Expert-testimony and authentication auditing. Machine-generated and AI-generated evidence auditing. A registry protocol and court-facing warrant checklist. Detailed worked examples examine forensic source attribution, expert overstatement, authentication, causation, witness convergence, and AI-generated evidence. The framework is presented as a proof-theoretic account of legal proof in which legal reports must preserve the status licensed by their supporting carriers rather than acquire stronger status through institutional, computational, statistical, or rhetorical transformation. The resulting contribution is a cross-domain audit grammar for legal inference that complements existing evidence law while providing a systematic method for identifying and preventing status laundering across legal, forensic, expert, and machine-generated claims.