This document is part of the Informational Mechanics (IM) framework and is published in the IM-D (Core Physics) series within the IM v0.3 corpus. The paper addresses the black hole information problem by re-examining the physical meaning of information under extreme gravitational collapse. Rather than treating the problem as a conflict between information loss and information preservation, the analysis argues that both alternatives presuppose the continued admissibility of operator-defined information in regimes where the structural conditions required to define information may no longer hold. Within Informational Mechanics, information is defined only where admissible structure exists: stable distinctions, persistent identities, and reproducible correlations supported by operational comparability under disturbance. Under gravitational collapse and evaporation, these conditions fail. In such regimes, the operators required to define, track, or recover information cease to be physically implementable, rendering questions of loss or preservation physically undefined rather than false. This admissibility-based perspective reframes the black hole information paradox without introducing new dynamics, modifying quantum mechanics, or invoking observer-dependent ontologies. Formal unitarity may remain intact at the level of mathematical description, while the physical content of information-bearing correlations becomes inadmissible. The firewall paradox is treated as a direct corollary, arising from an inadmissible demand for simultaneous operator-defined access to interior, exterior, and horizon-spanning descriptions. The paper synthesizes and clarifies the distinct insights associated with Penrose, Hawking, and Susskind by showing that each applies within a different admissible regime. Black holes are treated as local admissibility boundaries, analogous to cosmological regime boundaries analyzed in Regime Condensation Cosmology (IM-D002). This work introduces no new dynamics, models, or experimental fits. Its contribution is disciplinary and structural: to clarify the regime conditions under which “information” is physically defined, and to reclassify the paradox as an inadmissible demand for simultaneous operator-defined access across incompatible regimes.