A.19.USCM:11.1 - SoTA alignment map

SoTA practice pointer, post‑2015+	Primary source examples, post‑2015+	Where it connects to USCM	Adoption status
Prefer monotone and interpretable scoring surfaces where appropriate	Explainable additive and monotone model lines, e.g., Lou et al. 2016; Nori et al. 2019; monotone deep lattice style models, e.g., You et al. 2017	Expressed as admissibility‑bounded transform freedom via `CGSpecSlot.SCP` and explicit scalarization rules; method details stay out of the kernel	Adapt
Treat probabilistic scores as measures requiring calibration, not raw outputs	Calibration practice, e.g., temperature scaling (Guo et al. 2017) and successors	Expressed as “score is a measure on an explicit scale,” bounded by SCP+CSLC and evidence gating; calibration itself is wired as method semantics, not kernel law	Adapt
Keep uncertainty explicit and allow set‑valued scoring when appropriate	Modern conformal prediction practice, e.g., Romano et al. 2019; Barber et al. 2021	Expressed as “vector scores allowed; unknown not coerced; no hidden scalarization,” enabling downstream set‑valued comparison/selection	Adapt
Keep architectural commitments traceable to one governing pattern	ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2022 architecture description discipline	Expressed as explicit governing-pattern assignment and Tell+Cite stubs elsewhere (no competing semantics)	Adopt

Notes per row

USCM does not “implement a particular scoring model”; it preserves a stable, admissibility‑gated surface on which such models can be wired.
Calibration is treated as a lawful transform family that must live within SCP+CSLC; the kernel does not mandate a specific calibration method.
Set‑valued scoring aligns with USCM’s “vector first, scalar by declaration” law, and is naturally consumed by CPM/SelectorMechanism without forcing a spurious total order.
Governing-pattern traceability is used here to keep the spec teachable and non-duplicative; it does not add new governance cards or admissibility gates.