A.6.3.CSC:12a - Boundary with quantum-like state-representation coarsening

For a less detailed account of a model, state representation, or evidence set, use the ordinary source-to-candidate comparison and first check at A.6.3.CSC:4.1-4.2. They already require that the candidate neither lose a distinction needed for the present use nor add or strengthen anything the source does not support. A dashboard row, partner-safe page, diagram, or coarse display may expose claim-bearing content through a publication form and carrier; readability alone does not identify an exact episteme.

C.26 becomes current only when a named quantum-like cue remains material after that ordinary CSC comparison—for example incompatible probes, contextual probability, an instrument-like update, an open-information-system update rule, or no faithful-enough export for the declared use. Without such a surviving cue, stay in CSC.

If the coarsened candidate claims to preserve action, intervention, manipulation, explanation, or cross-abstraction structure, state the exact correspondence or causal-abstraction relation before relying on that claim. C.26 may supply the additional quantum-like state-representation account only when the surviving cue requires it; CSC continues to supply the loss, unsupported-addition, narrower-use, non-use, and return boundary.

Independent reuse, formalization, empirical comparison, high stakes, or comparative performance can raise CSC identity or evidence demands. None of them opens C.26 by itself: a named quantum-like residue must remain. Do not add QL wording or apparatus to ordinary summary, anonymization, diagramming, audience adaptation, or controlled coarsening.