Modern data systems increasingly operate under conditions of persistent legal, political, and analytic disagreement. In such settings, interoperability cannot rely on shared interpretation, negotiated semantics, or centralized authority. Instead, representations must function as neutral substrates that preserve stable reference across incompatible extensions. This paper investigates the structural constraints imposed on ontological design by this requirement. Building on a neutrality framework that treats interpretive non-commitment and stability under extension as explicit design constraints, we ask what minimal ontological structure is forced if accountability relationships are to remain referable and comparable under disagreement. Minimality here is not mere parsimony: a reduction is admissible only if it does not reintroduce stability-critical distinctions as hidden roles, flags, or contextual predicates. We establish a conditional lower-bound result: any ontology capable of supporting accountability under persistent disagreement must realize at least six distinct identity-and-persistence regimes. We further show that a construction with exactly six such regimes is sufficient to satisfy the stated requirements without embedding causal or normative commitments in the substrate. The result is not a proposal for a universal ontology, but a constraint on what is possible when neutrality and stable reference are treated as non-negotiable design goals.

翻译：现代数据系统日益在持续的法律、政治及分析分歧条件下运行。在此类环境中，互操作性无法依赖共享解释、协商语义或集中权威。相反，表征必须作为中立基底发挥作用，在不兼容的扩展中保持稳定的指称关系。本文探讨该要求对本体设计施加的结构性约束。基于将解释非承诺性和扩展稳定性作为显式设计约束的中立性框架，我们追问：若要使问责关系在分歧状态下保持可指称与可比较，何种最小本体结构是必须实现的？此处的极小性并非单纯简约：仅当简化不会将稳定性关键区分重新引入为隐藏角色、标志或语境谓词时，该简化才可被接受。我们建立了一个条件性下界结果：任何能够在持续分歧下支持问责的本体必须实现至少六种不同的同一性与持存机制。我们进一步证明，恰好包含六种此类机制的构造足以满足既定要求，且无需在基底中嵌入因果或规范性承诺。该结果并非对通用本体的提案，而是当中立性与稳定指称被视为不可协商的设计目标时，对可能实现范围的约束。