Locative inversion in English (under the bridge lived a troll) is ungrammatical in all of the contexts where Jo-support applies: subject-auxiliary inversion, sentential negation, emphasis or verum focus, VP ellipsis, and VP displacement. Importantly, it is ungrammatical in these contexts whether do-support applies or not: it is ungrammatical with other auxiliaries, and it is also ungrammatical in nonfinite clauses of these types, where do-support never actually applies. This indicates that all of these contexts have something in common, and that cannot be disruption of adjacency between tense/agreement and the verb because there is no such disruption with other auxiliaries or in nonfinite contexts. These facts therefore argue against the standard last-resort theory of do-support, which holds that it is inserted to save a stranded tense/agreement affix, and for a theory like that of Baker 1991. In this theory, VPs have corresponding SPECIAL PURPOSE ([SP]) VPs, and do heads a [SP] VP. All of the contexts for do-support have in common the featural specification [SP]. Locative inversion involves a null expletive subject, the licensing of which is blocked by a non-[SP] context. All of this argues for a view of syntax with language-particular licensing constraints, features, and rules, within a range of variation proscribed by universal grammar.

Achieving net-zero energy systems requires combining technological deployment with governance innovations that secure public legitimacy, equity and international credibility. Nuclear energy – including large reactors and emerging small modular reactors (SMRs) – offers firm, low-carbon power that can complement variable renewables, but expansion is constrained by public distrust, governance fragmentation, workforce challenges and concerns about cost and waste. This article advances the Qudrat-Ullah Nuclear Peace and Trust (Q-NPT) framework as a systemic governance approach that explicitly embeds trust, equity and institutional learning into nuclear energy deployment strategies, aligning nuclear investments with energy transition objectives. Using Canada as a detailed case, we map Q-NPT elements onto Canadian governance structures, energy infrastructure and nascent SMR programs. Empirical material (national generation shares, regulatory milestones, SMR licensing progress and workforce trends) shows both the opportunity and the governance barriers Canada faces.

This study introduces measurable governance metrics – covering trust, equity, transparency, participation and institutional capacity – to evaluate nuclear social legitimacy and transition readiness. Quantitative thresholds include targeted increases of ≥20 percentage points in public trust; ≥25% Indigenous participation in decision processes; ≥80–90% transparency in project documentation and a workforce pipeline of 75,000–90,000 skilled workers by 2040. These thresholds provide a predictive, results-oriented basis for evaluating governance progress, addressing a key gap in existing nuclear policy frameworks.

We propose actionable institutional reforms (independent trust panels, stakeholder engagement protocols, workforce pipelines and international integration strategies) and an operational roadmap for Q-NPT implementation. Results indicate that applying Q-NPT measurably improves governance performance compared to conventional models by elevating trust, reducing procedural conflict, strengthening equity outcomes and accelerating regulatory acceptance. Without such deliberate trust-building and equity mechanisms, nuclear energy’s technical potential will remain underutilized; conversely, Q-NPT provides a structured pathway for achieving just, credible and scalable decarbonization.