The Axiomatic Theory of Tragic Subjecthood (ATTS) has, across twelve articles, progressively extended the application of the Closure Theorem (T1, the Theorem of Moral Field Closure) — the theorem establishing that a normative subject retains structural connection to any loss-space opened by its decisions, regardless of delegation or mediation. The theorem has been applied to individual subjects, collective subjects, intergenerational subjects, and the anterior configurations of multi-agent architects. What has not been examined is the internal ontological structure of this theorem: specifically, whether the indestructibility of the bond between decision and loss-space is a property of the relation between subject and loss-space (the relational interpretation, R), or a property of the causal configuration of the loss-space itself (the configurational interpretation, Cfg). In cases where the subject continues to exist, both interpretations yield identical predictions. The gap becomes visible only at the limit — when the subject ceases to exist. This article takes boundary events of subjecthood — events that eliminate the subject as an identifiable bearer of the full bond — as a diagnostic instrument for resolving this underdetermination. Two confirmed instances are analysed: the temporal collapse point (TCP) for intergenerational subjects, formalised in Article 7, and the death of an individual subject. Through a systematic analysis of what disappears and what persists after each type of boundary event, the article derives three criteria of adequacy that can be reconstructed as necessary conditions for the coherence of the published theory: the constitutive criterion (K1), the irreversibility criterion at two levels (K2), and the invariance criterion (K3). It is then shown that the relational interpretation violates K3, while the configurational interpretation satisfies all three. The central result — the Theorem of Boundary Transition — is that the ontological persistence of the Closure Theorem requires the configurational rather than the relational interpretation. Two corollaries follow: the Structural Trace as the necessary ontological result of any boundary transition, and the Ontological Fixation Principle as a consequence for the theory of tragic judgment developed in Article 12. The falsification condition: a boundary event after which the loss-space no longer bears a configuration of the type defined through the conditions of constitution (KN2): that is, after which no irreversible narrowing of the space of possibilities for subjects defined under the axiom of subjecthood remains attributable to that decision — would falsify the central thesis. A generic physical trace is not sufficient: what must disappear is the constitutively significant configuration anchored to the axiom of subjecthood, not merely any causal residue.
Volodymyr Hlynskyi (Mon,) studied this question.