A.19:5.2.4 - Cross-reference-scheme and cross-plane comparability

A comparison across reference schemes or planes follows the relations the case actually needs. When it relates two exact F.17 local senses and the F.9 predicate obtains, cite that Bridge and a separate bounded-use claim; CL is optional evidence shorthand. A plane crossing cites its applicable plane relation. Keep the coordinate mapping and A.19.UNM instances explicit. A context, scheme, or plane difference alone establishes no Bridge or comparison admissibility, and a reverse comparison needs its own justified direction.

A comparison may reuse a predicate only when its complete by-value meaning is unchanged. When a coordinate mapping is needed, it must preserve every predicate component required by this use. If the reuse also relates two exact local senses through an obtaining Bridge, a separate bounded-use claim states that semantic use and any required reliance passes. CPM separately binds comparison scope, comparator, input values, effective reference plane, and evaluation window. The Bridge alone copies neither predicate content, scope, nor time, and a common label establishes none of them.

C.16 governs measurement uncertainty and calibration limits; A.3.3 governs prediction error and model applicability. Use B.3 or the direct assurance pattern when the use makes an assurance claim. Report the values as incomparable for the use when a critical coordinate lacks an admissible normalization or coordinate mapping; a separately needed semantic Bridge, bounded-use claim, or plane relation is absent; any required reliance does not pass; or the predicate, plane, scope, or window cannot be held fixed.