The legal system did not arrive at its present form through a single theory or moment of reform. It evolved through a sequence of narrow recognitions made in response to practical pressure. Each recognition addressed a specific failure in the allocation of consequence. None claimed to complete the system.
Over roughly two centuries, the law learned to contain consequence as it moved across space, persisted through time, survived failure, and constrained authority. Ships were recognized so that mobility would not defeat accountability. Corporations were recognized so that continuity would not dissolve obligation. Bankruptcy was recognized so that failure would not become terminal. Standing was refined so that courts would not exceed their authority.
Each step was conservative. Each preserved function. Each reduced illegitimacy by supplying a lawful locus through which consequence could pass.
One subject was never added.
Humans remained everywhere within jurisdiction and nowhere recognized as a jurisdictional subject in their own right. The omission was survivable when systems were sparse, consequences were local, and failure was slow. It became visible as systems grew continuous, cumulative, and automated, and as consequence began to follow people across domains without reset.
Nothing in this series proposes a rupture with legal tradition. It describes a trajectory already taken and identifies the point at which it stopped. The work of recognition advanced through land, vessels, entities, insolvency, and courts, and then stalled before reaching the human subject to whom consequence ultimately attaches.
The remaining step is neither doctrinally exotic nor institutionally disruptive. It is structurally consistent with what came before. It names the human as the subject through whom consequence must be routed if legitimacy is to be preserved when systems act at scale.
This is why the question is not whether the law should change, but whether it will complete what it has already begun.
Human jurisdiction is not an endpoint. It is the last missing recognition required for the existing structure to function without asymmetry. Without it, downstream protections arrive too late, accountability dissolves upstream, and standing becomes an after-the-fact ritual rather than a condition of legitimacy.
The trajectory is unfinished only in one place.
This series exists to show where it stopped, why it stopped there, and why the conditions that once made that omission tolerable no longer hold.
No instruction follows. No demand is made.
The law knows this path. It has walked it before.