A.19.CPM:5 - Archetypal Grounding — informative

A.19.CPM:5.1 - Tell

Think of CPM as a declaration for a replayable, relation-producing comparison operation:

• Input: “two admitted profiles + an explicit comparator spec + declared admissibility and evidence declarations”
• Output: “a set‑valued relation outcome that preserves incomparability and uncertainty”

The key didactic boundary is: CPM compares; it does not decide.

A.19.CPM:5.2 - Show (U.System) — comparing two supplier options without faking a total order

A program manager compares Supplier‑A vs Supplier‑B for a safety‑critical component. The team tracks a profile of measures (cost, lead time, defect rate, assurance, sustainability), but not all measures are strictly comparable across regions (different reporting regimes, different units).

• The project has a declared CN‑Spec (admission and comparability declarations) and a declared CG‑Spec that lists admissible comparators in ComparatorSet and evidence rules in MinimalEvidence.

• The comparator is ParetoDominanceComparatorSpecRef@edition, declared in CG-Spec.ComparatorSet.

• The actual application binds the two supplier profiles; the claim scope supplier options for the named component and procurement decision; its selected regulatory and reporting U.ContextSlice members under A.2.6; ComparisonPredicate = none because Pareto dominance is supplied by the comparator; the stated procurement reference plane; and the explicit comparison interval.

• CPM runs Compare(...); a changed component, scope member, comparator, plane, or interval is another comparison rather than an update to the same output.

  • If Supplier‑A is better in cost but worse in defect rate and incomparable on assurance due to missing evidence, CPM does not invent “A wins” or “A loses”.
  • CompareEligibility returns degrade or abstain under the evidence policy. On abstain, no comparison tokens are fabricated. When an explicit degrade policy permits a bounded partial comparison, ComparisonResultSlot contains only the justified relation tokens and preserves incomparability.

• The downstream SelectorMechanism can then return a selected set (e.g., keep both suppliers in the candidate set) rather than forcing a single winner by hidden tie‑break rules.

A.19.CPM:5.3 - Show (U.Episteme) — uncertainty‑aware comparison with set‑valued outcomes

A research lead compares two proposed methods for a system component. Both methods have performance estimates with uncertainty bounds (e.g., distributions or prediction intervals). The team uses a SoTA uncertainty quantification package (post‑2015 conformal families are a common example) to avoid overstating confidence.

• USCM produces score profiles that are interval‑valued (or otherwise uncertainty‑annotated) rather than point estimates.
• The chosen comparator is uncertainty‑aware and declared as a ComparatorSpec (edition‑pinned) in CG‑Spec.ComparatorSet.
• CompareEligibility returns its guard value separately. If comparison proceeds, CPM returns justified relation tokens such as not worse or incomparable; if it abstains, no abstain token is smuggled into ComparisonResultSlot.
• The dated comparison U.Work, actual Compare application with its effective comparator, evidence-policy, and ComparisonResultSlot bindings, and A.10 evidence-provenance path let later readers reproduce why the comparison abstained or degraded instead of mistaking missing evidence for equality.