A.19.USCM:3 - Forces

1. Admissibility discipline vs operational pressure. Scoring is where “just compute a number” pressure is strongest, but admissibility must remain explicit and checkable: SCP and CSLC constraints must bound permissible transforms.

2. Method diversity vs stable mechanism boundary. Scoring methods evolve rapidly; USCM’s signature must remain stable so method families can be wired through SoTA packs and extensions without mutating the mechanism boundary.

3. Vector reality vs scalar simplicity. Many situations require multiple score dimensions. A single scalar score may be convenient but must be an explicit, declared commitment, not a hidden reduction.

4. Uncertainty vs decisiveness. Teams need decisions under uncertainty; the framework must prevent epistemic overconfidence. Tri‑state admissibility guards preserve correctness without forcing silent coercions.

5. Strict distinction across CHR steps. USCM must not absorb UNM, ULSAM, or CPM semantics “for convenience,” or the suite becomes opaque and non‑teachable.

6. Evolvability vs didactic usability. Interfaces must remain evolvable (stable SlotKind surface; method semantics externalized), while the spec remains teachable: a reader must find USCM’s purpose, boundary, laws, guard behavior, and audit minimum in one place.

7. P2W separation and gate/guard separation. Planned baseline binding, including editions and policy ids, belongs to WorkPlanning plan items; gate decisions belong under gate patterns and work‑enactment logs belong with WorkEnactment. USCM must expose eligibility and audit pins without turning into a gate or a planner.