CC-A2.2-01 | Is the holder an admitted U.System under A.1 for this claim? |
CC-A2.2-02 | Does the capability claim name the work family or result class? |
CC-A2.2-03 | Does the capability claim name the envelope: inputs, environment, configuration, resources, constraints, or conditions? |
CC-A2.2-04 | Does the measure set bind measurable bounds to units, scales, thresholds, predicates, declared U.Characteristic values, Q-Bundle slots, or architecture-characteristic rows without making those inputs the capability? |
CC-A2.2-05 | Are the claim’s actual time and conditions distinguished from its qualification policy, support window and dated currentness assessment? |
CC-A2.2-06 | Are statements, evidence, source-use relations, certifications, reports, dashboards, and currentness assessments expressed as neighboring support records or relations, without treating the records as holders or their existence as proof of ability? |
CC-A2.2-07 | Are the exact system-role assignment, SystemRoleAssignmentStateRelation, Method-side admission or fit condition, performed Work, and promise content kept separate? |
CC-A2.2-08 | For Work admission, are the exact system-role assignment, capability claim, and capability-fit predicate all visible when all are current? |
CC-A2.2-09 | For composite holders, is the capability stated at the whole whose ability is being claimed? |
CC-A2.2-10 | Are lowering and reopen conditions local enough to change only the affected ability proposition, assertion, evidence relation, currentness assessment or fit predicate? |
CC-A2.2-11 | When wording says that a holder possesses an algorithm, did the use dispatch separately to capability, exact Method, deployed-software or possession relation, or candidate episteme, and apply A.3.2’s exact-Method EntityOfConcern plus substantive-claim threshold before admitting U.MethodDescription? Does only the admitted holder system perform dated Work under exact assignment while the Work separately enacts the Method? |