A.19.SelectorMechanism:5.2 - Show, U.System example

Scenario. A platform team must pick a set of deployment options for a subsystem under multiple criteria: latency, cost, and regulatory risk. Comparisons are multi-criteria and do not induce a total order.

• CandidateSetSlot = {OptionA, OptionB, OptionC}.

• CriteriaSlot requires Pareto selection over the three unordered pairs {A,B}, {A,C}, and {B,C}, returns all non-dominated admissible candidates, and preserves the full selected set unless an explicit current criterion requires a singleton.

• The finite upstream comparison-application basis covers all three required pairs:

  • exact Compare(OptionA, OptionB, ...) has GuardDecision = pass: OptionB is strictly better than OptionA on latency, while OptionA is strictly better than OptionB on cost under the declared comparator. Its ComparisonResultSlot records those strict opposite wins, so neither dominates the other;
  • exact Compare(OptionA, OptionC, ...) has GuardDecision = degrade because OptionC lacks the required risk attestation, and its output binding contributes no relation token about OptionC; and
  • exact Compare(OptionB, OptionC, ...) has the same explicit degrade basis and likewise contributes no relation token about OptionC.

  The Selector’s ComparisonResultSlot argument is exactly the union of those justified member outputs, so its two tokens both trace to the {A,B} CPM application. No equality, worse-than, or abstain token is fabricated for OptionC.

• MinimalEvidenceSlot? is absent, so evidence is evaluated against CGSpecSlot.MinimalEvidence.

• The actual selection binds the three exact CPM applications and their pair, eligibility, and output bindings; the required-pair coverage and token trace; the deployment-option claim scope and selected regulatory U.ContextSlice members; the same predicate basis or explicit none; the reference plane and evaluation interval; and a degrade policy that permits exclusion of OptionC.

Outcome.

• Under that explicitly bound degrade policy, SelectEligibility returns degrade, excludes OptionC without coercing unknown evidence, and SelectionSlot returns {OptionA, OptionB}.
• If either required comparison involving OptionC instead had GuardDecision = abstain, that basis member would have no output binding, SelectEligibility would return abstain, and no selected-set value would be created. Neither guard value is a member of ComparisonResultSlot or SelectionSlot.
• The dated selection U.Work, actual Select application, finite CPM application basis, evidence-policy and SelectionSlot bindings, and A.10 evidence-provenance path preserve why the reduced-set branch proceeded and why the abstain branch did not.