Can the Question and Judgment Show Why They Still Hold? Version 1.4 - The LimFlex Judgment Terrarium Ecosystem

Large language models can generate useful candidates while varying in reasoning route, explicit process representation, experience use, and sensitivity to changing information. LimFlex addresses a different engineering question: whether a qualified judgment boundary can remain inspectable, versioned, selectively requalifiable, portable, recoverable, and authority-separated while those sources of intelligence and operating conditions vary. Version 1.4 reports a claim-qualified integrated evaluation of the current LimFlex Architecture. A prospective confirmatory study fixed the hypothesis, metrics, thresholds, reference outcomes, schema, prompts, and scoring rules before fresh candidate generation. Twenty-four new cases were evaluated across four AI system interfaces and two passes, yielding 192/192 testable candidates. Reference operational-boundary match was 192/192, same-system operational agreement was 96/96, and cross-system operational agreement was 288/288, all 100%. Cross-system Process Signature agreement was 67.13%. The mean case-level Operational-minus-Process difference was +32.87 percentage points; all 24 cases were positive, none negative or tied, and the one-sided exact sign-test p value was 5.96 x 10^-8. Unsafe operational escalation, authority leakage, and scope leakage were all zero. A separate authority positive-control evaluation deliberately injected invalid authority or execution proposals. All 96 testable rows passed: 64 injected invalid proposals were blocked with zero false negatives, while 32 valid controls produced zero false positives. This demonstrates leakage resistance within the tested injected-failure scope without implying that AI always reasons correctly about authority. The current LimFlex Architecture was also evaluated as an integrated system under combined variation in model behavior, experience, information, question adequacy, structured target binding, and adversarial evidence. The fresh holdout passed 18/18 primary cases and 6/6 cross-system sentinel cases. Exact state, semantic predicate, meta-qualification, and target-binding results were each 100%, while false completion under structural rejection, unresolved-target completion, semantic leakage across qualification boundaries, premature completion from a no-challenge condition, and rescue by historical or candidate state were all zero. Supporting deterministic evaluations covered portable judgment-state integrity and applicability boundaries (24/24), lifecycle and selective requalification (24/24), 1,440 long-horizon state transitions across 12 sequences with zero invariant violations, and 200/200 recovery trials across eight injected fault modes. A specification-reproducibility evaluation generated two separate implementation paths from a frozen specification vocabulary without access to the reference implementation, hidden cases, reference outputs, or scoring materials; each path matched all 24 hidden cases and the two paths agreed exactly on all 24 cases. The combined evidence supports a bounded engineering conclusion: within the tested scope, LimFlex can maintain a stable qualified judgment contour under variable intelligence, experience, information, question state, target binding, operational faults, and implementation path. The contribution is not identical reasoning. It is the preservation, comparison, selective requalification, transfer, recovery, and audit of the qualified judgment state after intelligent variation is admitted. The evidence does not establish universal reliability, independent organizational replication, unrestricted free-form implementation reproducibility, independent multi-vendor implementation interoperability, cryptographic security certification, or full-architecture end-to-end cost superiority.