A.2.6:2 - Context

A.2.6:2.1 - Cross‑disciplinary pressures

Modern projects couple formal specs, data‑driven models, safety cases, and operational playbooks. Each specification, model, safety case, or operational-playbook publication must say where it is valid—yet terminology drifts:

• Standards and specs often say applicability or scope.
• Modeling communities say envelope.
• Safety and performance documents speak about capability envelope.
• Knowledge patterns have used generality (G) as if it were “more abstract,” when we actually need “where the statement holds.”

A.2.6:2.2 - Slice-bounded reasoning

U.ContextSlice is an addressable value identified by its exact declared selector schema and selector values under the effective reference scheme: for example local senses, named standard editions, environmental values, platform or cohort selectors, and a time selector when that selector belongs to the declared schema. One scope predicate may inspect only a projection of those selectors, but that projection does not reidentify the slice.

The practical question is therefore concrete: does this exact slice belong to this exact scope? A phrase such as “inside the current context,” a project label, or a selected U.Structure does not answer it.

A.2.6:2.3 - Minimal, composable trust math

In F–G–R:

• F (formality) is “how strictly a claim is expressed” (C.2.3).
• G must be “where it holds,” not “how abstract it sounds.”
• R carries evidence and reliance currentness. Observed semantic mismatch or loss may be evidence about a proposed translation, while the permitted-loss tolerance belongs to the separate C.2.1 claim about that use.

When G is a set‑valued scope, composition becomes precise: serial dependencies intersect scopes; parallel, independently supported lines can publish a SpanUnion—but only where each line is supported.