A.6.0:5.2 - Clinical work: dose-response claim before relation-kind admission

A clinician needs the ordinary claim: During PatientEpisode_8472, Intervention_5mg was associated with OutcomeChange_BPminus10 over ObservationWindow_Days0to28 under the stated dosing and population conditions. No current direct pattern in this corpus governs a DoseResponseRelationKind. For this use, A.6.RCD therefore keeps the sentence as a local compound claim in one C.2.1 episteme; repeated clinical uses may justify a reusable predicate-definition episteme, but neither result is a RelationSignature or a relation occurrence.

The local predicate treats the named patient episode, intervention, outcome change, and observation window as its exact inputs. ObservationWindow_Days0to28 answers how long this patient’s outcome change is aggregated for this assertion. The claim’s or reusable definition’s Applicability instead states the population, dosing protocol and conditions, and the time and claim scope in which the rule is used. Do not repeat the patient window as Applicability unless a separate applicability claim genuinely uses that same interval. Before any RelationSignature can be published, the missing-governor result must name the candidate relation kind, these participant meanings, the direct predicate, Applicability, occurrence-identity rule, and a standalone clinical domain governor; E.24/E.24.UK must admit the result.

A selected assay-result episteme may support or refute the compound assertion. Use A.2.4/A.10 to qualify that evidence use and any intended reliance. When an assay result changes, reassess whether it supports or refutes the same bounded assertion; that assessment may stay the same, change, or be unresolved. The reusable predicate definition remains unchanged. A changed outcome meaning, population, dosing condition, or declared applicability changes the definition’s claim content and C.2.1 identity.

Practical payoff: clinicians and analysts can write and compare the bounded claim now, reuse a settled predicate definition when repetition warrants it, and keep patient episodes, evidence epistemes, and evidence-use claims distinct.