La Profilée’s persistence constraint IR = R / (F · I · C) ≤ 1 has been applied across physical, biological, organizational, and psychological domains. This paper addresses its epistemic status: is IR ≤ 1 an empirical regularity — a pattern observed across domains that could in principle be falsified — or a structural law — a necessity derivable from what persistence, transformation, and structural identity mean? We argue for the latter. The argument proceeds in three steps. First, we show that F, I, and C are not a convenient decomposition but the exhaustive and necessary structural preconditions for persistence under transformation. Any system that persists under transformation must have all three; their absence is not a variation but a contradiction. Second, we show that the constraint form IR ≤ 1 is structurally entailed: IR > 1 cannot be maintained stably because unabsorbed transformation accumulates as structural inconsistency until coherence fails. Third, we establish the law-status consequence: IR ≤ 1 is not falsifiable by case-level counterexample, because a reported counterexample indicates measurement error or misclassification rather than a structural exception. Falsification of LP’s constraint would require showing a structural contradiction in its derivation — not producing a case. The persistence constraint is a structural law, not an empirical generalization.