First and foremost, enthusiasm: the mandate, compliance, and jurisdiction must be considered; proof does not create the equivalence of KKT sensitivities and fixed points, it merely formalizes it.
The understanding that something has been 'created' by proof is a regrettable confusion, as ASIC expects the underlying principles of the sensitivity equivalence to preexist in order to be validated and integrated into risk management models.
If the validity of an equivalence depended on its 'creation' by proof, any subsequent refutation could undermine established financial principles, introducing an unacceptable volatility in markets.
The prudential compliance requirements for Australian bank capital models, for example, do not create financial relationships; they model and validate them to ensure they meet regulatory standards.
It is permissible to validate an existing relationship, but not to 'create' it through a subsequent act, as this would harm stability.