A.3.2:7 - Conformance Checklist

CC-A3.2-1 (Episteme membership). A.3.2 judges one already identified U.Episteme candidate. That same individual is a U.MethodDescription only when its C.2.1 EntityOfConcern is one admitted U.Method and at least one claim says how that Method is done. Representation form, publication form, carrier, approval, and use adequacy do not decide membership; no binary description relation is minted.

CC-A3.2-2 (Positive description threshold). The episteme must make at least one substantive claim about the method as a way of doing, such as its transformation or enactment concern, generic participant meanings, applicability, precondition, intended effect or preserved condition, bound, or internal composition. A name, citation, author, catalogue entry, or approval status alone is mention, not method-description membership.

CC-A3.2-3 (No automatic trigger repair). Wording such as algorithm, program, proof, solver, workflow, process, procedure, recipe, or model is only a cue. Classify the episteme as U.MethodDescription only after its claim and admitted Method pass CC-A3.2-1 and CC-A3.2-2.

CC-A3.2-4 (Description not work). Executable-looking material is not a Work occurrence. For a program run, proof-checking session, solver run, lab run, or clinical application, first recover every performing System’s A.13 core, including its obtaining assignment of a separately declared species. Admit Work only after A.15.1 independently identifies the world-side occurrence, enacted Method, temporal extent, and containing System. Apply F.6 through that same assignment afterward only when precise assignment-bound attribution is claimed; a missing or failed F.6 attribution leaves independently admitted Work intact. Any participant, resource-use, or work-to-referent claim needs its own admitted relation; if none exists, return the corresponding missing-governor result.

CC-A3.2-5 (Description not plan or authority). A method description is not a work plan, gate decision, permission, approval, external-rule authorization, or evidence relation. Those claims may cite the description but require their own subject patterns.

CC-A3.2-6 (Description not mechanism or declaration). A method description is neither a RelationSignature nor A.6.1 OperationAlgebra content and does not close a mechanism claim. If reusable direct-relation participant declaration is current, use A.6.0 and A.6.5. If operation algebra, law set, admissibility predicates, or applicability is current, use A.6.1; transport, audit, realization, evaluation, and evidence-use relations remain with their direct patterns.

CC-A3.2-7 (Description not formal substrate). A method description does not close a formal-substrate or mathematical-lens claim. If variables, equations, invariants, structure, substrate, or mathematical payoff are current, use A.6.0, C.29, or the direct mathematical pattern.

CC-A3.2-8 (No people or calendars inside the description claim). A method description may state local system-role kinds and capability thresholds that bound admissible enactment. A claim that a particular System belongs to one of those kinds is a separate System-classification judgment. Named people or Systems, dates, schedules, launch values, assignment species and obtaining assignment occurrences, F.6 attributions, and Work witnesses belong to their planning, classification, assignment, or Work patterns.

CC-A3.2-9 (Parameters and use time). A method description may state parameter meanings and ranges. A U.WorkPlan names planned values against the declaration that gives them meaning. An actual participant or operation value requires an obtaining subject relation or A.6.1 application binding; otherwise keep it planned and return missing-governor[actual-use].

CC-A3.2-10 (Same subject versus equivalent descriptions). Two descriptions concern the same U.Method only when their EntityOfConcern references resolve to the same A.3.1 method identity. A scheme difference may require an F.9 Bridge to interpret a comparison, but the Bridge does not establish Method identity. Shared subject also does not make the epistemes equivalent: state which claims are preserved, absent, incompatible, or inaccurate for the proposed use. Do not use executable agreement, renaming of bound variables, graph equivalence, or persistence across stages by itself to decide whether the Method is the same or different or the claims are equivalent.

CC-A3.2-11 (Edition and refinement). A later file or episteme edition does not by itself refine the Method. Use C.2.1 for the edition relation and state which description claims a comparison preserves or strengthens. Then use A.3.1 to decide whether one Method continues or two Methods are being compared, and apply its refinement test only to the world-side Method claim. A one-use comparison may stop as claim content under A.6.RCD; it creates no Method relation occurrence.

CC-A3.2-12 (Nondeterminism). When a description permits search, optimization, sampling, nondeterministic choice, or learned behavior, state the admissible result range and the criterion for evaluating actual Work or results. Name the pattern or declaration that defines that criterion.

CC-A3.2-13 (Cross-context and semantic-locality boundary). F.9 answers only whether a Bridge obtains between two SchemeSenseCell values. For proposed reuse, state a separate C.2.1 claim with the use, direction, correspondence rule, loss tolerance, and affirmative or negative polarity. Positive polarity alone is not reliance. Ordinary reliance with no assurance claim requires RelianceDisposition=pass on its A.10 path. When an actual named assurance claim about the same bounded use is current, apply B.3; positive assurance requires its AssuranceResult with disposition=supported-for-use. A direct domain rule may require that claim, but consequence alone does not create it. A negative or absent use claim, a non-passing A.10 disposition, or—when that assurance claim is current—a B.3 result that does not support the attempted use stops or narrows reuse even while the Bridge obtains. Changes of reference scheme, unit, role taxonomy, claim scope, or model use stay under their own patterns.

CC-A3.2-14 (Declarative representation). Use C.2.P.DR when a declarative representation’s form or layout is being treated as sufficient to prescribe work. Recover the direct object or relation and any representation use. Assert the proposed route, dispatch, call, or work-control sequence only when its exact predicate is defined and current facts satisfy it; otherwise retain the direct object or representation without that unsupported action claim.

CC-A3.2-15 (Causal-use boundary). A method description may describe intervention assignment, target-trial emulation, realized-counterfactual sampling, simulation, or causal-evidence collection. It does not by itself establish causal use. If causal effect, intervention success, counterfactual comparison, causal fairness, or policy effect is claimed, use C.28.