A.6.3.CR:4.5.f. - Local conservativity witness for borderline textual cases

For borderline textual rewrites, the user treats the case as conservative only while each point below remains visibly preserved or its loss is declared and admissible for the stated use. A missing basis or repairable defect follows the repair route in §4.2.b; an actual changed claim or use follows the pattern that defines, constrains, or tests it.

• Modality and force. A rewrite may not silently turn possibility, uncertainty, permission, obligation, recommendation, decision status, bounded scope, temporal window, or hypothesis language into a wider commitment.
• Caveats and qualifications. A rewrite may not quietly remove conditions, exception notes, uncertainty markers, or temporal qualifiers that still matter for interpreting the same source.
• Reliability assessment. Cleaner prose, better ordering, or manager-facing polish may not silently raise confidence, warrant claim, or readiness for action.
• Bridge and receiving-use boundary. Same-entity textual fluency may not establish a semantic Bridge between local senses, bounded-use suitability, current reliance, authorization, or a comparative-review occurrence. Open only the F.9, A.10 or B.3, authorization, or occurrence branch that the actual later use needs; recover an asserted occurrence under its direct obtaining or admission rule.
• Alternative preservation. A rewrite may not collapse open alternatives, rival hypotheses, or declared plurality into one apparently settled interpretation unless the loss is stated and still admissible under this pattern.

This witness is local to ConservativeRetextualization. It does not replace the broader conservativity invariants of A.6.3; it makes them inspectable for textual rewrites where fluent prose can otherwise hide strengthening.