Recent no-go theorems on observer-dependent quantum events, including results on timelike friendliness, demonstrate that no single observer-independent assignment of outcomes can be maintained across all admissible measurement perspectives. These results are typically framed as failures of causal consistency, operational absoluteness, or observer agreement. This paper provides a law-level resolution of these no-go statements within a closure-based framework. The failure of observer absoluteness is shown to arise not from branching dynamics, measurement ambiguity, decoherence, or interpretational incompleteness, but from a global closure phenomenon termed Υ-collapse. Υ-collapse is the forced identification of distinct closure histories as equivalent under admissibility constraints. It operates at the level of archive-scale consistency and global equivalence recognition, rather than at the level of local record formation. This distinguishes Υ-collapse from Δ-collapse, which stabilizes outcomes within a branch, and from kinetic Γ-collapse, which governs solver-world compatibility. Within this formulation, timelike friendliness violations correspond to forbidden observer-locus reindexings: attempted perspective shifts that exceed admissible kinetic bounds or violate global equivalence constraints. Apparent paradoxes therefore arise from inadmissible observer configurations, not from physical inconsistency or failure of quantum theory. The analysis preserves all standard quantum predictions while explaining, at the law level, why certain observer-independent descriptions cannot jointly exist. No modification of quantum dynamics, no hidden variables, and no epistemic relativism are introduced. Instead, observer disagreement is shown to be a structural consequence of global closure and admissibility.