本文对心理学内部的前提一致性问题进行结构性审理。 文章指出:当心理学在同一实践链条中既宣称外部裁决具有终局合法性,又主张干预效力依赖主体承认时,其在“终局合法性与追责结构”层级上形成不可兼容的承诺。若取消主体性前提,则追责链条无法闭合;若坚持追责,则外部终局裁决的独立性不能成立。 本文不讨论疗效数据,不进行流派批评,而仅以逻辑一致性为审理标准,分析对象化裁决与主体性效力之间的结构张力,并揭示前提混用如何在实践中形成收益与代价的不对称分配。 本文为一项独立的前提一致性分析文本。 This article conducts a structural analysis of premise consistency within psychology. It argues that when psychology simultaneously claims terminal legitimacy for external adjudication and conditions therapeutic efficacy on subjective acknowledgment within the same practical framework, an incompatibility arises at the level of terminal legitimacy and the structural conditions of responsibility. If subjectivity is removed, responsibility cannot be structurally grounded; if responsibility is maintained, the independence of terminal adjudication cannot stand. The paper does not engage in empirical efficacy debates nor in school-based criticism. Instead, it adopts logical consistency as its sole criterion of analysis, examining the structural tension between objectifying adjudication and subjective efficacy, and identifying the resulting mechanism of asymmetric cost transfer. This work functions as an independent analysis of premise consistency.