The capacity of a name to establish a recognizable conceptual or spatial territory through attribution, repetition, retrieval and institutional uptake. TopolexicalSovereignty names a transition rather than a static property: something changes in the relation between language, material, institution and use. The operator is therefore strongest when it is applied to a process that can be observed over time, not merely attached as a decorative label. Across these domains, the same structural question returns: how does a weak, provisional or dispersed condition become durable enough to organize later action? It is not simply being first to coin a term and not absolute ownership. Sovereignty appears when later discourse must orient itself in relation to the established name. This distinction prevents the operator from dissolving into a familiar neighboring concept. A useful operator must permit disagreement about whether a particular case qualifies, which means that its boundary should remain clear enough to resist indiscriminate use. The central danger is that technical visibility and historical precedence can be mistaken for exclusive authority over a phenomenon that admits other vocabularies. The operator is not valuable because every case is harmful or beneficial, but because it identifies the precise moment at which a productive capacity can turn into a form of constraint. Its critical force lies in making that passage visible before it becomes naturalized. A practical test is simple: trace whether the term has become a productive public entrance or a border that prevents competing descriptions from remaining visible. The answer should be grounded in observable relations, documentary traces, repeated behavior or material consequences rather than intuition alone. Used carefully, TopolexicalSovereignty can move among disciplines without becoming vague. It names one recurring mechanism at different scales: the phrase, the archive, the building, the platform, the institution or the field. Its portability is not metaphorical looseness. It is the recognition that heterogeneous systems can share an operational structure while retaining their material differences. Anto Lloveras · LAPIEZA-LAB · Madrid · 2026