OOF™ Origin Open Foundation™

Independent Methodological Authority

Architecture Ecosystem: Structured Reality Standards™
Architecture Family: TREGA™ — Tax-Relevant Event Governance Architecture™
Parent Standard: Tax-Relevant Event Formation Standard (TREFS)
Module: EFIM — Event Formation Integrity Module
Operational Layer: Event Formation Integrity Governance Layer
Category: Governance & Enforcement
Subcategory: Tax-Relevant Event Governance
Type: Core Module
Governed Space: Event Formation Integrity
Origin ID: TREGA-TREFS-EFIM-005
Version: 1.0
Status: Canonical · Open Standard
Effective Date: 30 August 2026
AI-Readable: Yes
Authority: OOF®
Protection: MIP® — Methodology Intellectual Property Protection
Canonical Language: English

Canonical Definition

Event Formation Integrity Module (EFIM) governs whether a
developing Event Formation is sufficiently coherent, structurally
complete, internally consistent, traceable, and formation-ready
to legitimately exit Tax-Relevant Event Formation governance and
proceed into Event Boundary governance.

EFIM evaluates the governed formation produced through the
preceding TREFS modules as an integrated structural whole,
including its qualified Formation Components, Formation Assembly,
material Formation Dependencies, and Event Formation Root
Association.

Its task is specific:

to determine whether the governed Event Formation possesses
sufficient formation integrity to proceed into Event Boundary
governance without treating formation integrity as validation,
audit determination, evidence sufficiency, legal taxability, or
final Event Determination.

EFIM therefore governs the final structural integrity gate of
TREFS.

Operational Role

The preceding TREFS modules establish different structural
dimensions of Event Formation:

EFCM — Event Formation Component Module

establishes the qualified components required for formation.

EFAM — Event Formation Assembly Module

establishes how those components form a coherent structural
assembly.

EFDM — Event Formation Dependency Module

establishes the material dependencies supporting or constraining
the formation.

EFRM — Event Formation Root Module

establishes the operational root association anchoring the
formation.

EFIM then asks:

Does the resulting formation, considered as a governed structural
whole, possess sufficient integrity to proceed into Event
Boundary governance?

EFIM does not recreate the work of the preceding modules.

It evaluates whether their governed outputs collectively support
a sufficiently coherent Event Formation.

The principal transition is:

Developing Governed Event Formation

↓

Formation Integrity Assessment

↓

Governed Formed Event Internal Flow

Qualified Event Formation Components + Governed Event Formation
Assembly + Governed Event Formation Dependency Structure +
Governed Event Formation Root Association

→ Formation Integrity Readiness Assessment

→ Structural Completeness Assessment

→ Formation Coherence Assessment

→ Internal Consistency Assessment

→ Formation Traceability Assessment

→ Conflict / Gap / Uncertainty Assessment

→ Formation Integrity Determination

→ Integrity-Sufficient / Integrity-Insufficient /
Integrity-Unresolved Formation

→ Governed Formed Event

The principal successful output is:

Governed Formed Event

This output proceeds to:

TREBS — Tax-Relevant Event Boundary
Standard Operational Space

EFIM governs the space between:

a structurally developed Event Formation produced through EFCM,
EFAM, EFDM, and EFRM

and

a Governed Formed Event sufficiently coherent to enter Event
Boundary governance.

Its operational space includes: formation integrity readiness;
structural completeness; component-to-assembly consistency;
dependency consistency; root consistency; cross-formation
coherence; internal contradiction detection; structural gap
identification; formation conflict identification; formation
uncertainty; formation traceability; formation integrity states;
integrity insufficiency; integrity reconsideration; formation
readiness for Event Boundary governance.

EFIM governs integrity of formation as formation.

It does not govern universal system integrity, legal integrity,
evidence validity, audit conclusions, validation status, Event
Boundary, or taxation.

Operational Scope

EFIM may govern Event Formation Integrity across: commercial
transactions; financial activity; payments; transfers;
production; manufacturing; supply chains; logistics; service
delivery; digital services; subscriptions; platforms;
marketplaces; banking; enterprise systems; APIs; software
interactions; digital assets; automated infrastructure; AI
systems; autonomous agents; robots; machine-to-machine
transactions; automated marketplaces; distributed systems; hybrid
physical-digital environments; future machine economies.

EFIM is actor-neutral, system-neutral, technology-neutral, and
jurisdiction-neutral.

The formation may originate through human, organizational,
digital, machine-generated, autonomous, or mixed activity.

Formation Integrity Principle

A collection of individually governed formation elements does not
automatically constitute an integrity-sufficient Event Formation.

Qualified components may exist.

A formation assembly may exist.

Dependencies may be established.

A root may be associated.

Yet contradictions, structural gaps, incompatible relationships,
unresolved dependencies, or material uncertainty may prevent the
resulting formation from legitimately proceeding.

Therefore:

Governed Formation Elements ≠ Formation Integrity by Default.

Formation integrity must be assessed at the level of the
formation as a whole.

Formation Integrity Readiness

Before substantive integrity assessment occurs, EFIM determines
whether the formation contains sufficient governed structure to
undergo integrity evaluation.

Formation Integrity Readiness may require the availability of
materially necessary outputs from preceding TREFS modules.

However, readiness does not require artificial completeness.

A legitimate unresolved or qualified condition may remain
represented where it does not prevent meaningful integrity
assessment.

Therefore:

Formation Integrity Ready ≠ Formation Integrity Sufficient.

Readiness permits assessment.

It does not predetermine its result.

Structural Completeness

EFIM assesses whether the Event Formation contains the materially
necessary structural dimensions required to function as a
coherent formation.

Structural completeness does not mean that every possible data
field is populated.

It means that no materially necessary formation element is absent
in a manner that prevents the formation from being meaningfully
governed.

Therefore:

Data Completeness ≠ Structural Completeness.

A formation containing thousands of records may remain
structurally incomplete.

A formation containing relatively few records may nevertheless be
structurally sufficient.

The relevant question is:

Does the formation contain what is materially necessary to
represent its governed structure?

Formation Coherence

EFIM evaluates whether the formation makes structural sense as a
unified governed representation.

Formation Components, Assembly, Dependencies, and Root
Association should collectively describe a formation that can be
understood without relying on materially incompatible structural
assumptions.

Coherence may require that: qualified components can legitimately
coexist within the formation; assembly relationships remain
intelligible; dependencies do not contradict the assembled
structure; the Event Formation Root remains compatible with the
formation; material structural relationships remain explainable;
unresolved conditions remain visible; no hidden assumption is
required to make the formation appear coherent.

Therefore:

Structural Presence ≠ Structural Coherence.

Internal Consistency

EFIM evaluates whether governed formation outputs materially
contradict one another.

Possible inconsistencies may include: a component classified as
materially necessary but absent from the assembly; an assembly
relationship incompatible with a governed dependency; a
dependency contradicting the proposed operational root; two
components represented as mutually exclusive while simultaneously
required within the same formation; materially incompatible root
representations; formation logic requiring mutually contradictory
structural states.

EFIM must not silently normalize material contradictions.

Therefore:

Resolvable Difference ≠ Material Inconsistency.

But:

Material Contradiction Must Remain Governed.

Formation Traceability

A formation should remain sufficiently traceable to understand
how its structure was established.

EFIM may assess whether the formation preserves traceable
relationships to: the Governed Recognized Occurrence; qualified
Formation Components; component qualification decisions;
Formation Assembly; material Formation Dependencies; Event
Formation Root Association; unresolved formation questions;
reconsiderations; structural changes; formation integrity
decisions.

Traceability does not require EFIM to conduct an audit.

Therefore:

Formation Traceability ≠ Audit Determination.

Formation Gap

A Formation Gap exists where a materially necessary structural
element, relationship, dependency, root association, or
governance basis is absent or insufficiently established.

Not every missing field creates a Formation Gap.

Not every Formation Gap prevents progression.

EFIM must assess materiality within the formation.

Possible states include:

Non-Material Gap

Material Resolvable Gap

Material Blocking Gap

Unresolved Gap

Therefore:

Missing Information ≠ Formation Failure by Default.

Formation Conflict

A Formation Conflict exists where materially incompatible
formation representations cannot simultaneously remain valid
without qualification.

Conflicts may arise between: components; assembly structures;
dependencies; root associations; source representations;
distributed-system records; machine-generated representations;
human and automated interpretations.

EFIM must preserve material conflict rather than forcing
artificial consistency.

Therefore:

Conflict Visibility Is Part of Formation Integrity.

A formation that openly represents a governed unresolved conflict
may possess greater methodological integrity than one that hides
the conflict.

Formation Uncertainty

Formation integrity does not require false certainty.

Where uncertainty remains materially relevant, EFIM must
determine whether it: can coexist with progression; requires
qualification; requires reconsideration by an earlier TREFS
module; prevents formation integrity from being established.

Possible treatment includes:

Integrity Sufficient with Qualified
Uncertainty

or:

Formation Integrity Unresolved

Therefore:

Uncertainty ≠ Integrity Failure by Default.

But uncertainty must never be silently converted into certainty.

Formation Integrity States

EFIM may establish the following governed states: 1. Formation
Integrity Assessment Ready

The formation contains sufficient governed structure for
integrity assessment. 2. Formation Integrity Under Assessment

Integrity evaluation is actively occurring. 3. Formation
Integrity Sufficient

The formation possesses sufficient structural integrity to
proceed. 4. Formation Integrity Sufficient with Qualification

The formation may proceed while explicitly preserving
non-blocking uncertainty, limitation, or qualification. 5.
Formation Integrity Insufficient

Material structural deficiencies prevent legitimate progression.
6. Formation Integrity Unresolved

Available governance basis does not permit a legitimate
sufficient/insufficient determination. 7. Formation Integrity
Reconsideration Required

A material issue requires governed reconsideration of one or more
preceding formation dimensions. 8. Governed Formed Event

The formation has successfully completed the TREFS formation
layer and is ready to enter Event Boundary governance.

Integrity Insufficiency

Formation Integrity may be insufficient where material structural
problems prevent the formation from legitimately representing a
coherent formed event.

Possible causes include: materially missing Formation Components;
materially incoherent Assembly; unresolved blocking dependencies;
materially incompatible root association; structural
contradictions; untraceable material formation decisions;
unresolved blocking conflicts; formation fragmentation;
unsupported structural assumptions.

An integrity-insufficient formation should not be artificially
promoted merely because downstream systems require an event
record.

Therefore:

Downstream Processing Requirement ≠ Formation Integrity.

Return to Earlier Formation Governance

EFIM is not required to repair every detected formation problem
itself.

Where a material integrity problem belongs to an earlier
formation dimension, EFIM should return or route the issue to the
appropriate TREFS module.

Examples:

component deficiency

↓

EFCM

assembly deficiency

↓

EFAM

dependency deficiency

↓

EFDM

root deficiency

↓

EFRM

This preserves module ownership.

Therefore:

Integrity Assessment ≠ Formation Reconstruction.

EFIM identifies whether formation integrity exists.

The relevant module governs correction of its own formation
dimension.

Formation Integrity Reconsideration

New information may materially affect an earlier Formation
Integrity determination.

EFIM must support governed reconsideration.

Reconsideration should preserve: previous integrity state;
previous assessment basis; reason for reconsideration; new or
changed information; affected formation dimensions; revised
integrity state; progression or return decision.

Therefore:

Integrity Reconsideration ≠ Historical Erasure. Formation
Integrity ≠ Validation

EFIM does not validate the event in the broader methodological
sense.

Within the OOF® architecture ecosystem, validation belongs to
VALIDOS™ where applicable.

EFIM asks:

Is this Event Formation structurally coherent and sufficiently
governed as a formation?

It does not ask:

Has the event been independently validated under a broader
validation methodology?

Therefore:

Formation Integrity ≠ Validation. Formation Integrity ≠ General
Integrity Governance

EFIM governs a narrow integrity question within TREFS.

It does not replace broader integrity governance.

Where broader system, information, process, or methodological
integrity must be governed, INTEGROS® may own the relevant
architecture space.

Therefore:

Event Formation Integrity ≠ General Integrity Governance.
Formation Integrity ≠ Evidence Sufficiency

EFIM may consume evidence references or traceable source
information.

It does not determine general evidential sufficiency or
auditability.

Those governance spaces may belong to ADIT® where applicable.

Therefore:

Formation Integrity ≠ Evidence Sufficiency.

Formation Traceability ≠ Evidence Validation. Formation Integrity
≠ Event Boundary

A formation may possess sufficient integrity while its final
extent remains undetermined.

That is intentional.

TREFS establishes what coherent event structure has been formed.

TREBS subsequently governs what belongs inside, outside,
separated from, or associated with the Event Boundary.

Therefore:

Formation Integrity Sufficient ≠ Event Boundary Determined.

EFIM must not solve Event Boundary questions merely to make the
formation appear complete. Formation Integrity ≠ Event
Determination

A successfully formed event is not yet a formally determined
Tax-Relevant Event.

TREDS later determines whether the governed event is sufficiently
structured and governed to constitute a Tax-Relevant Event for
downstream taxation analysis.

Therefore:

Governed Formed Event ≠ Determined Tax-Relevant Event. Formation
Integrity ≠ Legal Taxability

EFIM must remain independent of jurisdiction-specific taxation
rules.

A structurally coherent event may ultimately: be taxable; be
non-taxable; be exempt; fall outside a jurisdiction; be evaluated
differently by multiple jurisdictions; require additional legal
analysis.

None of these outcomes alters the purpose of EFIM.

Therefore:

Formation Integrity ≠ Legal Taxability.

Tax Rule Independence

Formation integrity should describe the governed event structure
rather than the tax rule subsequently applied to it.

A tax-law change should therefore not automatically alter the
historical Formation Integrity state where the underlying
operational formation has not changed.

Therefore:

Tax Rule Change ≠ Formation Integrity Change by Default.

This supports the TREGA™ principle:

One Event

↓

One Governed Event Layer

↓

Multiple Jurisdictional
Evaluations.

Machine and Autonomous Formation Integrity

Machine-generated and autonomous events may contain structures
that differ significantly from traditional human transactions.

They may involve: high-frequency actions; distributed execution;
autonomous decisions; machine-generated dependencies; API chains;
microtransactions; dynamic resource allocation; autonomous
settlement; machine-to-machine interaction.

EFIM must evaluate the integrity of the governed formation rather
than assume that every technical action represents a separate
event.

Therefore:

Technical Complexity ≠ Formation Integrity Failure.

And:

Machine Granularity ≠ Event Granularity.

Distributed Formation Integrity

A governed formation may span multiple systems, entities,
infrastructures, or technical environments.

No single system must necessarily contain the entire formation.

EFIM may assess structural integrity across distributed
representations where sufficient governed relationships exist.

Therefore:

Distributed Representation ≠ Fragmented Event by Default.

However, distributed representations must not be artificially
combined where structural coherence cannot be established.

Governance Requirements

EFIM requires that: the formation be assessed as an integrated
governed structure; integrity readiness be established before
substantive integrity determination; structural completeness be
distinguished from raw data completeness; Formation Components
remain consistent with Formation Assembly; material Formation
Dependencies remain structurally compatible; Event Formation Root
Association remain compatible with the formation; material
contradictions remain visible; material Formation Gaps be
identified; Formation Conflicts be governed; uncertainty not be
converted into false certainty; formation traceability be
sufficiently preserved; blocking and non-blocking deficiencies be
differentiated; qualified progression remain possible where
uncertainty is non-blocking; integrity-insufficient formations
not be artificially promoted; deficiencies belonging to earlier
modules be returned to the appropriate module; reconsideration
preserve historical integrity states; Formation Integrity remain
distinct from validation; Formation Integrity remain distinct
from general integrity governance; Formation Integrity remain
distinct from audit and evidence sufficiency; Formation Integrity
not determine Event Boundary; Formation Integrity not determine
Event Timing, Event Location, Event Participation, or
Event-to-Value Association; Formation Integrity not determine
legal taxability; Formation Integrity not determine Tax
Jurisdiction; successful completion produce a Governed Formed
Event suitable for TREBS.

Governance Logic

EFIM applies the following core logic:

Is the formation sufficiently complete at the structural level?

Do its components, assembly, dependencies, and root association
remain materially coherent with one another?

Are material contradictions, gaps, conflicts, and uncertainties
visible and governed?

Does any unresolved condition prevent legitimate progression?

Does the formation require reconsideration by EFCM, EFAM, EFDM,
or EFRM?

Can the formation legitimately exit TREFS and enter Event
Boundary governance?

The transformation is:

Developed Event Formation

→ Integrity Readiness

→ Completeness + Coherence + Consistency + Traceability

→ Gap / Conflict / Uncertainty Governance

→ Formation Integrity Determination

→ Governed Formed Event

Minimum Implementation Framework

A minimum EFIM implementation must be capable of:

1. receiving governed outputs from EFCM, EFAM, EFDM, and EFRM; 2.
determining Formation Integrity Readiness; 3. assessing
structural completeness; 4. assessing Formation Coherence; 5.
assessing internal structural consistency; 6. assessing material
Formation Traceability; 7. identifying material Formation Gaps;
8. identifying Formation Conflicts; 9. identifying and preserving
Formation Uncertainty; 10. differentiating blocking and
non-blocking integrity conditions; 11. supporting qualified
progression where justified; 12. establishing governed Formation
Integrity States; 13. identifying which preceding TREFS module
owns remediation of a detected structural deficiency; 14.
supporting governed Formation Integrity reconsideration; 15.
preserving prior integrity states and decisions; 16. preventing
integrity assessment from becoming validation, audit, evidence
determination, Event Boundary determination, or tax
determination; 17. producing a Governed Formed Event where
Formation Integrity is sufficient; 18. transferring that Governed
Formed Event to TREBS.

EFIM does not prescribe a specific database, event schema, ERP
platform, accounting model, tax engine, AI model, validation
framework, evidence methodology, distributed ledger,
autonomous-system architecture, or jurisdiction-specific taxation
methodology.

Governance Outputs

EFIM may produce:

Formation Integrity Assessment Record — governed record of the
integrity assessment.

Formation Integrity State — current governed integrity status.

Formation Gap Record — identified material structural gap.

Formation Conflict Record — identified material structural
incompatibility.

Formation Uncertainty Record — preserved material uncertainty.

Formation Integrity Qualification — explicit non-blocking
limitation attached to progression.

Formation Reconsideration Requirement — governed requirement for
reconsideration by a preceding TREFS module.

Formation Integrity Insufficiency Record — basis on which
progression is prevented.

Governed Formed Event — principal successful output of EFIM and
final output of TREFS.

Critical Distinctions

Governed Formation Elements ≠ Formation Integrity by Default.

Individual governed outputs must still form a coherent whole.

Formation Integrity Ready ≠ Formation Integrity Sufficient.

Readiness enables assessment.

Data Completeness ≠ Structural Completeness.

More data does not automatically create better formation.

Structural Presence ≠ Structural Coherence.

Existing components may still form an incoherent structure.

Resolvable Difference ≠ Material Inconsistency.

Not every difference blocks formation.

Missing Information ≠ Formation Failure by Default.

Materiality governs the consequence.

Conflict Visibility Is Part of Formation Integrity.

Hiding conflict does not create integrity.

Uncertainty ≠ Integrity Failure by Default.

Governed uncertainty may remain legitimate.

Downstream Processing Requirement ≠ Formation Integrity.

System pressure cannot manufacture methodological sufficiency.

Integrity Assessment ≠ Formation Reconstruction.

Earlier modules retain ownership of their formation dimensions.

Integrity Reconsideration ≠ Historical Erasure.

Previous states remain traceable.

Formation Integrity ≠ Validation.

VALIDOS™ owns broader validation governance where applicable.

Event Formation Integrity ≠ General Integrity Governance.

INTEGROS® owns broader integrity governance where applicable.

Formation Integrity ≠ Evidence Sufficiency.

ADIT® owns applicable evidence and auditability governance.

Formation Integrity Sufficient ≠ Event Boundary Determined.

TREBS owns Event Boundary.

Governed Formed Event ≠ Determined Tax-Relevant Event.

TREDS owns Event Determination.

Formation Integrity ≠ Legal Taxability.

Jurisdictional law determines taxation.

Tax Rule Change ≠ Formation Integrity Change by Default.

Operational formation remains independently governed.

Machine Granularity ≠ Event Granularity.

Technical actions do not automatically define governed events.

Distributed Representation ≠ Fragmented Event by Default.

Distribution alone does not determine event structure.

Enterprise Application

Modern enterprise and digital systems frequently create event
representations independently.

An ERP may create one record.

A payment processor may create several.

A marketplace may create another.

An autonomous agent may create dozens of machine actions.

A logistics platform may represent the same operational activity
differently.

A tax engine may subsequently consume only a subset.

The existence of these records does not establish that a coherent
governed event has been formed.

EFIM provides a structural integrity gate before the event enters
later governance.

Instead of asking:

“Do we have enough system records to create a tax record?”

EFIM asks:

“Is the underlying Event Formation structurally coherent enough
to become a Governed Formed Event?”

This creates a stable governance layer between fragmented
operational representations and downstream Event Boundary and
taxation analysis. Use CasesUse Case 1 — Cross-Border Marketplace
Produces Conflicting Event Structures

A global marketplace processes a transaction involving: customer
order placement; payment authorization; third-party seller
confirmation; automated fulfilment; cross-border shipment;
digital invoicing; payment settlement.

The marketplace represents the activity as one transaction.

The payment system represents it as authorization plus
settlement.

The logistics system represents several operational movements.

The seller ERP creates an order, invoice, receivable, and
fulfilment record.

A downstream tax system requires an event representation.

The existence of all these records does not establish a coherent
Event Formation.

EFCM identifies materially relevant components.

EFAM establishes their formation assembly.

EFDM governs material dependencies.

EFRM establishes the operational root association.

EFIM then evaluates whether these outputs collectively represent
a structurally coherent formation.

If the payment settlement is incorrectly represented as the root
while the formation structure demonstrates that service
fulfilment is operationally central, EFIM may identify a material
inconsistency and route the root question back to EFRM.

If a material seller confirmation is missing from the assembly,
EFIM may identify a Formation Gap and route the issue to EFCM or
EFAM.

Only after the resulting formation becomes sufficiently coherent
does EFIM produce:

Governed Formed Event

The event may then proceed to TREBS, where its final Event
Boundary is governed.

No tax jurisdiction, taxpayer, tax point, or tax liability has
yet been determined. Use Case 2 — Autonomous Machine Economy
Generates Thousands of Technical Actions

An autonomous industrial system dynamically purchases energy,
computing capacity, maintenance services, and replacement
components.

During one operational cycle, interconnected agents and machines
generate thousands of: sensor signals; API calls; pricing
requests; autonomous decisions; resource reservations; machine
commands; payment messages; settlement records.

Technical systems initially produce several competing event
formations.

One model treats every API interaction as an independent event.

Another aggregates the entire operational cycle into one event.

A third groups activity by settlement.

TREFS forms the relevant structural candidates through its
preceding modules.

EFIM evaluates whether each proposed formation possesses
sufficient structural integrity.

It may determine that a formation based purely on API-call
granularity lacks coherence because technical granularity does
not correspond to materially distinct operational formation.

It may also determine that aggregating the entire cycle into one
formation hides materially independent operational structures.

The integrity process therefore prevents both artificial
fragmentation and artificial aggregation.

The resulting Governed Formed Events can subsequently enter TREBS
for explicit Event Boundary governance and later TREGA stages.

Machine complexity is preserved without allowing technical system
structure to dictate economic event reality.

Canonical Boundary

EFIM governs the final structural integrity assessment of Event
Formation, including formation readiness, structural
completeness, coherence, internal consistency, material gaps,
conflicts, uncertainty, traceability, integrity states,
qualification, insufficiency, reconsideration, and readiness for
Event Boundary governance. It does not independently identify
Formation Components, reconstruct Formation Assembly, establish
Formation Dependencies, establish Event Formation Root, determine
Event Boundary, determine Event Timing, Event Location, Event
Participation, Event-to-Value Association, validate the event,
perform audit determination, establish general evidential
sufficiency, determine a Tax-Relevant Event, identify the
taxpayer, determine Tax Jurisdiction, establish legal tax point,
calculate tax, or determine jurisdiction-specific tax
consequences.

The final TREFS handoff is:

EFCM — Event Formation Components

→ EFAM — Event Formation Assembly

→ EFDM — Event Formation Dependencies

→ EFRM — Event Formation Root

→ EFIM — Event Formation Integrity

→ Governed Formed Event

→ TREBS — Tax-Relevant Event Boundary Standard

Canonical Closing Statement

Event Formation Integrity Module establishes the final governance
gate of Tax-Relevant Event Formation by determining whether
qualified components, assembly, dependencies, and operational
root collectively constitute a sufficiently coherent, complete,
consistent, traceable, and governable Event Formation. EFIM
preserves gaps, conflicts, uncertainty, qualification, and
reconsideration rather than manufacturing structural certainty
for downstream systems. It separates Formation Integrity from
validation, general integrity governance, evidence sufficiency,
Event Boundary, Event Determination, and legal taxability,
allowing TREFS to produce a stable Governed Formed Event without
crossing into jurisdiction-specific taxation.

With EFIM complete, TREFS transforms a Governed Recognized
Occurrence into a Governed Formed Event ready for Event Boundary
governance — while preserving the foundational TREGA™ principle:
TREGA™ governs the event. The jurisdiction governs the tax.