Intent Is the Only Valid Input

Data is not intent. State is not intent. Actions are not intent.

Only intent explains why something was done.

I. The Confusion of Inputs

Most systems accept inputs such as:

field values

payloads

commands

API parameters

These describe what to do, not why it should be done.

Execution without intent is automation without accountability.

II. Intent Precedes Legality

A decision is lawful only if its intent is known.

Without intent:

responsibility cannot be assigned

legitimacy cannot be evaluated

disputes cannot be resolved

Intent is the anchor of legality.

III. Data Cannot Explain Itself

Data answers what exists. It never answers why it exists.

Reconstructing intent from data is speculation.

Law does not accept speculation.

IV. Actions Are Outcomes, Not Causes

Actions describe execution. They do not describe motivation.

Logging actions without intent records motion without meaning.

Meaning is required for judgment.

V. Intent Must Be Explicit and Immutable

Intent must be:

explicitly declared

versioned

immutable

bound to time and actor

If intent can be inferred, it can be disputed.

Disputable intent is invalid.

VI. Systems Without Intent Are Unaccountable

A system that processes:

payloads

state mutations

blind commands

cannot answer:

“Who decided this, and why?”

Without that answer, there is no accountability.

VII. Intent Enables Replay and Audit

Replay requires:

the intent

the law applied

the context at the time

Without intent, replay is incomplete.

Incomplete replay is failed audit.

VIII. Final Conclusion

Intent is the only valid input.

A lawful system:

accepts intent, not state

derives decisions from intent

records intent immutably with every outcome

Anything else is execution without responsibility.