What architecture produces verification evidence as a byproduct of operation?

The funder mandate regime is shifting from self-reported plans ("did you write a DMP?") to verifiable evidence ("did you actually do it, and can you prove it?"). The Gates Foundation contracts OA.Works for programmatic compliance review; the May 2026 NIH standardized DMSP format replaces narrative descriptions with structured questions; Horizon Europe ties FAIR compliance to grant-agreement payments under Article 17.

This question asks what architectural properties allow an institution to produce the evidence the verification regime is converging on — without retrospective reconstruction, without forensic investigation, and without trusting an opaque service provider.

The structural answer the paper develops: under content-addressed, distributed architecture, verification is mathematical and inspectable. The hash confirms integrity; the node list confirms location and copy count; the access layer confirms permission state. The same single cryptographic query produces evidence any third party can independently re-verify. Under Tier 1 architecture, each of those four properties opens a separate audit burden the institution cannot answer by inspection.

Q-0005 connects the architectural question (Q-0002) to the regulatory and fiduciary question (Q-0003). It is the operational hinge under which architectural choice becomes a compliance posture.