What loads the conditions under which the latent §5 liability surfaces as realized cost?

A subsidiary question under Q-0003. The §5.2 liability is currently latent rather than realized at architectural scale. Q-0026 asks what is changing the probability of surfacing.

The answer is C-0025: three independent vectors are converging.

Vector 1 — Funder verification policy. NIH DMS Policy effective January 2023, simpler standardized format effective May 25 2026, Gates Foundation OA.Works programmatic compliance review January 2025, Horizon Europe FAIR mandate via Article 17, Wellcome suspension power, NSF DMP-or-returned-without-review, OSTP Nelson Memo (~$90B annual coverage). The shift is from a regime that cannot programmatically detect non-compliance to one that can.

Vector 2 — FCA precedent. Duke $112.5M (2019), Harvard-Anversa $10M (2017), Dana-Farber $15M (December 2025) under the implied-certification theory established in Universal Health Services v. Escobar (2016). The settlement range prices fraud, not architectural unavailability — but the doctrinal theory sits available for that extension.

Vector 3 — Regulatory convergence. SEC Rule 17a-4 + $3.5B in fines since 2021, HIPAA Security Rule + $2.19M willful-neglect penalty, 21 CFR Part 11 + Applied Therapeutics rejection. Research is the last consequential-data sector without mandatory verification of the infrastructure that holds it.

C-0048 adds: FOIA + NSPM-33 disclosure are non-FCA surfacing mechanisms operating today.