Why is the compliance gap structural rather than behavioral?

A subsidiary question under Q-0005 (verification architecture). The question reframes the 8/2 declaration-vs-delivery gap (E-0048) from a behavioral failure (researchers not following through) to a structural failure (no infrastructure to follow through with).

The answer is C-0033. A researcher writes a data management plan because the funder requires one. The plan describes depositing data in a repository, maintaining metadata, and providing access. The researcher receives the grant, spends three to five years generating data, and stores it on a laboratory server or a personal drive in whatever format is convenient. When the grant ends, the plan sits in a filing cabinet and the data sits on a hard drive. Neither is connected to the other.

The plan was a compliance artifact, and the institution provided no infrastructure to make it anything else. This is a Tier 0 problem dressed in Tier 1 language: the plan promises Tier 1 behavior, while the infrastructure supporting most researchers remains Tier 0. The 8/2 gap across 2.1 million articles is the consequence at sectoral scale.

The gap is not closing through better plan-writing; it can only close by infrastructure that produces compliance as a byproduct of operation rather than as a manual procedural follow-through. R3 (C-0042) is the operational fix: integrate compliance evidence generation into the deposit workflow.