A.6.3.CR:7 - Conformance Checklist

1. CC-CR-1 — Same EntityOfConcern remains explicit. The EntityOfConcern values independently resolved by the source and receiving entityOfConcernRef values are equal.
2. CC-CR-2 — Textual re-expression remains the right family. Textual restatement remains primary; explanation or a material representation-scheme change is not the primary move.
3. CC-CR-3 — Loss, provenance, pinning, and reliability are explicit or inherited by pinned reference. The case states these explicitly or inherits them through already-pinned content that remains visible to review.
4. CC-CR-4 — Direct vs correspondence split is explicit. The direct-vs-correspondence split is explicit and justified.
5. CC-CR-5 — Correspondence witness is named where needed. If correspondence-mediated, CorrespondenceModelRef is declared.
6. CC-CR-6 — Local conservativity witness remains satisfied. The reviewed case does not silently widen modality, remove caveats, raise reliability assessment, add an F.9 Bridge or bounded-use suitability claim, establish current reliance or authorization, claim that receiving use occurred, or collapse declared alternatives beyond stated loss notes.
7. CC-CR-7 — A missing condition, preservation defect, or changed claim is explicit on failure. If the case fails a check, name the missing source or condition, the repairable preservation defect, or the actual changed claim. Repair and recheck within CR when the intended restatement can be restored. For an actual different claim or use, name the pattern to use next (ExplanationFaithfulnessProfile, RepresentationSchemeTransition, A.6.4, B.5.2, or another applicable pattern).
8. CC-CR-8 — Working-model first remains intact. Ordinary same-entity rewrites stay lightweight; fuller explicit review records carry the fields needed for cases requiring fuller review.