This work is concerned with the conditions under which claims about physical reality remain meaningful, verifiable, and reconstructible across time, scale, and epistemic succession. It does not propose a theory of the world, nor does it advocate particular scientific programs or explanatory frameworks. Instead, it describes constraints that must hold for any system capable of forming persistent distinctions about reality, regardless of how that system represents, interprets, or conceptualizes the world. No epistemology, ontology, or symbolic system is treated as final in this work. Human systems of knowledge are assumed to be provisional, historically bounded artifacts subject to replacement. Accordingly, all constraints described herein are required to remain valid under the supersession of the epistemology and ontology that produced them. Where alternative or non-human systems of knowing are conceivable, their invariant requirements are actively sought and retained, while parochial assumptions are excluded. This work is constructed to escape temporal assumption. All arguments are framed so that their validity does not depend on the persistence of contemporary conditions, conventions, technologies, institutions, or interpretive norms. Only constraints grounded in physical processes that leave irreversible record across time are admitted. Claims whose verification depends on consensus, authority, or symbolic convention rather than physical trace are considered epistemically fragile and are not relied upon. Evidence, as treated here, is defined independently of language, belief, proposition, or explanation. It is identified instead with persistent physical differentiation: irreversible changes in state that constrain future possibilities. The existence of evidence therefore presupposes time ordering, irreversibility, and constraint. These are not assumptions about the nature of reality, but necessary conditions for any record to exist at all. This work adopts the principle of epistemic invariance. A constraint on evidence is considered admissible only if it applies to any system capable of forming stable claims about physical reality, independent of its internal epistemology, ontology, cognitive architecture, or symbolic representation. Differences in explanation, interpretation, or abstraction are treated as secondary to the physical requirements imposed by record formation and persistence. Because epistemologies are assumed to be non-final, this work is written with explicit provision for epistemic and ontological succession. Its purpose is not to preserve a framework, but to describe constraints that remain binding after the framework that articulated them is replaced. The discipline developed here is therefore intended to be reconstructible by successor intelligences, including those that do not share human language, mathematics, logic, or conceptual categories. No appeal is made to historical examples, contemporary debates, institutional practices, or cultural narratives. Such references introduce temporal dependency and are deliberately excluded. Where illustration is required, abstract experimental archetypes are employed without reference to specific eras, technologies, or actors. The scope of this work is limited. It does not address meaning, value, purpose, or ethics. It does not attempt to resolve metaphysical disputes. It does not predict future discoveries or technological outcomes. Its sole concern is the structural integrity of evidence: the conditions under which claims remain bound to reality rather than to interpretation. The chapters that follow develop a minimal discipline of evidence under these constraints. Each chapter introduces necessary conditions, failure modes, or architectural requirements that arise from the physical necessity of time, irreversibility, and constraint. Together, they form a framework intended to remain valid regardless of who is doing the knowing, how they conceive of knowledge, or what replaces the present understanding of the world.