Verification jurisdiction completes a three-part structure the model keeps separate whenever consequences are large. Three different questions imply three different jurisdictions: who has standing to decide? (decision jurisdiction), who has standing to know? (signal jurisdiction), and who has standing to verify that the boundary between deciding and knowing is being used legitimately? (verification jurisdiction). They overlap, but they are not identical — and no single participant should hold all three at consequential scale.
Why it must be its own function
It is the same separation that keeps management apart from independent audit: a chief executive runs the company but does not privately certify whether the financial statements are true, not because the auditor runs the company, but because deciding and verifying are different functions. Its power depends on functional independence — a verifier whose standing depends on pleasing the person examined is not really verifying. It generalizes bounded power: even a legitimate authority to act does not include the authority to certify its own conduct. See Leadership and the Information Door.