A.17:3 - Forces

• F1 – Single anchor of meaning. Any numeric value is meaningless unless one can ask “value of what?”. The measurement’s meaning must be anchored in a single clearly named aspect.

• F2 – Arity clarity. Some characteristics apply to a single entity (e.g. its mass or length), while others inherently relate multiple entities (e.g. distance between two points, coupling between modules, agreement between judges). If arity isn’t explicit, claims and calculations become corrupted.

• F3 – Scale integrity. Different kinds of scales permit different operations – e.g. you can average temperatures on a common interval or ratio scale but not ranks or grades (ordinal scale) without losing meaning. If one mixes values without regard to scale type or units, the result is nonsense (pseudo-arithmetic).

• F4 - Combining measurements. A measurement model relates quantities to obtain another quantity; a ScoringMethod combines values into a score for a declared evaluation. Each calculation needs its applicable relation and Scale operations. A common numerical encoding alone supplies neither.

• F5 – Transdisciplinarity. The measurement framework should work for any domain. The same conceptual scaffold must serve physical science (e.g. lab temperature readings), software engineering (e.g. module cohesion ratings), and even subjective assessments (e.g. figure-skating scores) without bias. One vocabulary, many CG‑frames.

• F6 - Revisable state descriptions. Development can change the Characteristics and state distinctions that matter. The description should support the changes, returns and further questions needed by the practice, including revision of its state space or transition law.