A.2.6:17 - Governance Hooks & Audits

When a scope-aware decision needs durable audit evidence, its C.2.1 result episteme may name:

Using object and exact scope. The claim-bearing episteme, capability, or publication object designates or uses the exact scope.
Exact target slice. Designate the independently identified slice with its complete declared selector schema and values. Bind the full slice as targetSlice; put the selector resolutions and translation inputs needed by this evaluation in interpretationBasis. Include gammaTime in the schema only when that temporal selector is part of the exact slice being evaluated.
Evaluation outcome. Record true, false, or unknown, plus the evaluation method or work occurrence when replay needs it.
Separate guard outcomes. Record work measures, qualification windows, formality, or freshness only when the receiving use checks them; none is membership.
Translation evidence, only when triggered. Name the exact obtaining F.9 Bridge, the separate C.2.1 claim with its polarity, use, direction, rule, and tolerance, and the exact A.10 or B.3 reliance branch. Record any observed loss as evidence rather than a Bridge identity field.
Scope change. Say whether the declared set widened, narrowed, or remained identical under refit.

USM-Ready. Exact scope and slice values are declared; editors can distinguish membership from evaluation, evidence, representation, and structure.
USM-Guarded. Guards evaluate exact Claim scope or Work scope membership, including gammaTime in the scope predicate only when time changes membership. Measures, qualification, and freshness remain separate checks.
USM-Auditable. Durable result epistemes identify the exact scope, slice, and evaluation result. When translation was triggered, they cite the obtaining F.9 Bridge, separate bounded-use claim, and current A.10 or B.3 reliance.
USM‑Composed. Serial intersection and SpanUnion are implemented in composition tooling.

Does each guard name a concrete TargetSlice?
Is membership reproducibly evaluable from the exact declared predicate and required inputs?
Are freshness and coverage separate predicates?
When exact local-sense translation was required, are the obtaining F.9 Bridge, separate C.2.1 use claim, direction, rule, tolerance, polarity, and current A.10 or B.3 reliance branch named?
For parallel support: is independence justified?

Silent widening. Require ΔG+ review; flag any scope increase without new direct support. A Bridge may translate supported conditions but does not supply support.
Opaque slices. Disallow “domain” placeholders; enforce addressable selectors.
Time drift. Require an exact gammaTime boundary only when the scope predicate itself changes membership across time; keep qualification, calibration, recertification, data-age, and evidence-freshness windows under their direct guards.