A.6.3.CR:5.1.d - Generated-summary source-relation variant
A generated or machine-assisted summary may stay in ConservativeRetextualization only when it remains an entityOfConcernRef-preserving textual re-expression and its source relation is visible enough for the intended use. This is the ordinary LLM-generated-summary case: a model-produced paragraph over a pinned inspection note, method-selection note, safety note, incident note, or other source slice is not automatically ExplanationFaithfulnessProfile merely because it was generated; it remains ConservativeRetextualization only while it restates source claims and leaves omissions, loss, and non-admissible uses visible. Ordinary source-finding use can stay light; use the compact variant below when the summary will be reused, cited, disputed, or relied on.
| Source-relation question | CR-local meaning |
|---|---|
| source pointer present | The summary points to the source slice or source bundle it claims to restate. |
| source actually used | The inspectable source relation shows that the generation or rewrite actually used the named source, not merely a similar topic or remembered background. If that relation is unavailable, source use remains unresolved; retain only the justified source-pointer or orientation use until the relation is recovered. |
| claim recoverable from source | Each claim-bearing summary claim can be recovered from the source slice or declared correspondence witness. |
| claim merely plausible | A sentence sounds likely but is not recoverable from the source. Do not present it as source-backed: retain only a justified source-finding or orientation pointer, or explicitly separate the unsupported proposition and repair it or handle it under the pattern for the new claim. |
| omission or loss | Relevant omitted qualifiers, alternatives, caveats, uncertainty, or conditions are visible enough for the admissible use. |
| claim widening | The summary does not turn possibility, hypothesis, bounded scope, or low-confidence wording into a wider commitment. |
| added linkage | New causal, bridge, comparison, work, gate, evidence, or explanation links are not introduced as if they were in the source. |
When the generated-summary case needs shared vocabulary, use only the E.17:5.1b source-relation or bounded-use distinction that changes the present use. Keep claim recoverability from the source separate from admissibility for that use, and an unknown relation separate from one known absent. The same source governs independent-verification claims and reopen conditions.
The summary may expose or cite the source slice it restates. It does not become that source slice by fluency, brevity, translation, layout, generated form, or reuse. If the needed source content, governing requirement, or case relation is missing, a repair request or source-gap note is only prospective: it neither establishes earlier source use nor supplies the missing claim support or use condition.
If the generated summary is source-pointer-only, merely plausible, claim-widened, or carrying added linkage, do not treat it as a conservative source-equivalent summary. For source-finding or orientation, retain only the justified pointer and separate any unsupported or new proposition from the source-backed account. Repair the claim against the source, or apply A.6.3.CSC, ExplanationFaithfulnessProfile, RepresentationSchemeTransition, E.17.ID.CR, A.15, A.10, or another pattern that defines, constrains, or tests the actual claim. An orientation or coarsening label alone does not make an unsupported claim source-faithful.