A.6.3.CR:11 - SoTA Alignment: Adopted Invariants, Adapted Invariants, and Rejected Shortcuts
SoTA alignment rule. Read each row here as source idea -> local FPF invariant -> practical local test -> popular shortcut rejected. A source citation governs nothing by reputation; it counts only when the cited idea is translated into the Solution, conformance checks, boundary rules, worked slices, and Relations of this pattern.
Traditions covered. This pattern binds itself to architecture-description governance, summarization factuality, translation-quality governance, and plain-language rewrite practice.
| Claim need | Source idea and current source | Current source reference | Local FPF invariant and practical local test | Adopted invariant, adapted invariant, and rejected shortcut |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative rewrite must stay visibly tied to the same source content rather than shifting through presentation fluency. | Architecture-description practice separates source publication, view, viewpoint, and required correspondence witness instead of letting rendered prose silently change the EntityOfConcern. | ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2022; source maturity = mature standard | A.6.3.CR keeps entityOfConcernRef-preserving textual restatement under A.6.3, applies A.6.4 when the resolved EntityOfConcern changes, and keeps bridge relation work out of fluent rewrite. | Adopt. |
| Summary-like rewriting is not automatically harmless; factuality and faithfulness need source-sensitive checking. | Modern summarization work treats unsupported compression, strengthening, and hallucinated linkage as core failure modes rather than editorial noise. | Maynez et al. (2020), On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization; source maturity = research paper as source for evaluation use | A.6.3.CR adopts that stance and adapts it to FPF by making omission, reliability assessment, and same-entity bounds explicit review concerns. | Adopt and adapt. |
| Translation quality is governed through declared quality aspects such as accuracy, omission, and addition rather than by fluency alone. | Translation-quality governance separates adequacy from text smoothness and requires explicit treatment of omission and addition error classes. | W3C Multidimensional Quality Metrics (MQM) Community Group and MQM issue-type framework: ongoing framework and community practice, with stable issue-type work and current attention to human, machine, and generative-AI translation quality evaluation. | A.6.3.CR adapts this by treating correspondence-mediated and cross-language rewrites as admissible only when loss, provenance, and same-entity bounds stay explicit. | Adapt; source maturity = ongoing framework and community practice. |
| Plain-language rewrite may improve readability, but it must not silently change commitments, scope, or force. | Plain-language standards favour reader-oriented rewriting while preserving the original commitments and conditions that matter for use. | ISO 24495-1:2023; source maturity = mature standard | A.6.3.CR adopts reader-oriented simplification for ordinary cases and rejects the popular shortcut that “plainer text” alone proves conservativity. | Adopt and reject the popular shortcut. |
Architecture-description governance. A.6.3.CR adopts the discipline that rendered text must stay visibly tied to a declared source publication or U.View line. It therefore rejects same-topic textual polish as sufficient evidence of entityOfConcernRef-preserving conservativity.
Summarization factuality. A.6.3.CR adapts modern factuality concerns into source-sensitive conservativity checking, including independent verification and reopening when those questions are live. Use E.17:5.1b for the source-relation and bounded-use distinctions needed by the case, keeping source recoverability separate from use admissibility; use E.17:5.1c for the shared use-boundary terms and E.17:5.1d to select the primary boundary. This pattern uses them only for entityOfConcernRef-preserving textual restatement.
Translation and plain-language traditions. A.6.3.CR adopts the reader-oriented value of translation and plain rewrite, but rejects the still-popular habit of treating cross-language or plain-language textual fluency as automatic proof that no new claim has been introduced. The W3C MQM source is used for issue-type and evaluation discipline, not as a brand-level warrant that a translated or rewritten sentence is source-equivalent.
Local stance. Best-known current practice motivates a narrow rule: entityOfConcernRef-preserving textual restatement is admissible only when source tether, loss, provenance, and same-entity bounds remain explicit enough that the reader can still tell what was preserved, what was omitted, when the rewrite has become a different claim, and which pattern to use next.