A.19.CHR:4.3 - Suite obligations
CHRMechanismSuiteDescription.suite_obligations MUST be written using the canonical obligation vocabulary from A.6.7:4.2 and MUST include the following clauses (duplicates-free set semantics; order carries no meaning):
{ bridge_only_crossings, two_bridge_rule_for_described_entity_change, transport_declarative_only, penalties_route_to_r_eff_only, guard_decision_tristate(pass|degrade|abstain), unknown_never_coerces_to_pass, gate_decision_separation, guard_lexeme_reservations, cg_spec_cite_required_for_numeric_ops, no_silent_scalarisation_of_partial_orders, no_silent_totalisation, no_thresholds_in_suite_core, crossing_visibility_required, planned_slot_filling_in_work_planning_only, finalize_launch_values_in_work_enactment_only, implementation_export_discipline_when_cited }.
A.19.CHR:4.3.1 - Crossings, visibility, and penalties
bridge_only_crossings: a semantic correspondence between distinct recovered local senses requires the obtaining F.9 Bridge and the bounded-use/reliance basis consumed by this use.two_bridge_rule_for_described_entity_change: a C.3.3 kind correspondence retains its own endpoints, obtaining and receiving-use conditions. If an F.9 correspondence is also used, establish it independently. EntityOfConcern change alone supplies neither relation. Plane-only claims stay under their direct governor.transport_declarative_only: the suite does not embed CL/Φ/Ψ/Φ_plane tables and does not introduce any additional graph edge kind beyond E.18U.Transfer; it requires only refs/pins/anchors whose realization is mediated by E.18 / gate surfaces.penalties_route_to_r_eff_only: CL/Φ/Ψ/Φ_plane penalties route toR/R_effonly;F/Gare invariant under penalty routing.crossing_visibility_required: an actual E.18 crossing in an independently selected TransformationFlowStructure retains its required CrossingBundle; an A.21 work-entry gate retains its applicable gate anchors. A changed edition pin triggers the recheck required by its receiving use, but does not itself create a crossing, Bridge or gate.
A.19.CHR:4.3.2 - Guards and gate separation
- Guard decision tristate: mechanism‑level guards return
GuardDecision := {pass | degrade | abstain}. - Unknown never coerces to pass: unknown/insufficient evidence MUST map to
degradeorabstain, not topass. - Gate decision separation: mechanisms and suite objects MUST NOT publish
GateDecisionnorDecisionLog.blockis gate‑only (OperationalGate(profile)). - Guard lexeme reservations:
USM.CompareGuard/USM.LaunchGuardare gate‑level pins; mechanism predicates use suffixes…Admissibility/…Eligibility.
A.19.CHR:4.3.3 - Numeric admissibility and order lawfulness
- CG‑Spec citation required: any numeric scoring/aggregation/comparison MUST cite CG‑Spec (SCP + ComparatorSet + MinimalEvidence + Γ_fold + Φ/CL pins), and MUST NOT embed a “shadow CG‑Spec” inside mechanisms/suite.
- No silent scalarisation of partial orders: partial order comparisons remain set‑valued; any scalar summary is report‑only unless explicitly declared as a lawful comparator/policy.
- No silent totalisation: absence of totality MUST NOT be hidden by “tie‑breakers” or implicit weights.
A.19.CHR:4.3.4 - P2W discipline
- Edition/reference baselines use A.15.2 WorkPlan content. Typed planned filling uses A.15.3 only for independently declared positions.
- FinalizeLaunchValues in WorkEnactment only.
- Suite and plan objects MUST NOT contain launch‑value witnesses.
A.19.CHR:4.3.5 - Thresholds and defaults
no_thresholds_in_suite_core: acceptance thresholds live in AcceptanceClauses / TaskSignature / GateProfile, not in CHR suite core.- Default discipline (no competing defaults): the suite MUST NOT introduce competing defaults. If a default is used (e.g.,
PortfolioMode), it MUST be cited from its single declared source (typically a TaskSignature or an explicit policy-id), and all other mentions are citations.
A.19.CHR:4.3.6 - Implementation export discipline (when cited)
-
Suite MAY cite implementations (CAL/LOG/CHR) as refs, but:
- LOG/CHR do not export Γ,
- CAL exports exactly one Γ,
- imports are acyclic.
A.19.CHR:4.3.7 - Claim reference index
The existing claim identifiers resolve to the rules below. The rules are stated once at their governing locations.
| Claim identifiers | Governing content |
|---|---|
| L-A67CHR-01 | §4.2 membership set semantics |
| L-A67CHR-02, L-A67CHR-03, A-A67CHR-02 | §§4.1.2 and 4.6 planned baseline and its separation from enactment |
| A-A67CHR-01 | §4.5 operation/edition resolution |
| D-A67CHR-01, D-A67CHR-02 | CC-A67CHR-1 kind and level |
| D-A67CHR-03 | §4.2 and CC-A67CHR-2 canonical membership |
| D-A67CHR-04 | §4.4 and CC-A67CHR-3 specification references |
| D-A67CHR-05 | §§4.3.1 and 4.4; CC-A67CHR-13 transport/crossing content |
| D-A67CHR-06 | §4.6 and CC-A67CHR-10 planned baseline |
| D-A67CHR-07, D-A67CHR-08 | CC-A67CHR-10a and CC-A67CHR-11 typed filling and plan/enactment separation |
| D-A67CHR-09 | CC-A67CHR-16 anchors required by the actual claim |
| E-A67CHR-01, E-A67CHR-02 | §4.6 and CC-A67CHR-14 baseline citation and actual enactment evidence |