A companion paper (https://zenodo.org/records/19633560) proves that ISP and DIP are equivalent at theclass level. This paper addresses the question that class-level equivalence leavesopen: where should the client-specific interfaces live in the package structure?We formalize each of Martin’s principles — DIP, ISP, and the six packagingprinciples (REP, CCP, CRP, ADP, SDP, SAP) — as constraints on a partition andprove that CCP and REP are jointly unsatisfiable for any multi-client providerconfiguration: CCP requires each interface to be co-located with its client, whileREP requires each interface to be independently releasable. No partition satis-fies both. The result extends to all three vertices of Martin’s tension triangle:dropping REP or CRP still yields zero solutions; only dropping CCP producesany. Martin’s framework provides no meta-criterion for selecting among thesurvivors.