A.6.3:4.3 - Apply the same-EntityOfConcern and conservativity laws

For every admitted v : X -> Y:

1. Same EntityOfConcern. X and Y designate the same exact EntityOfConcern. Similar labels, bridge claims, or one shared project do not establish this equality.
2. No unsupported strengthening. Every claim in Y about that entity is recoverable as a consequence, conservative re-expression, or explicitly admitted aggregation of claims in the identified sources under the declared reference and representation semantics.
3. Declared loss. Every omitted concern or claim family that affects receiving use is named, together with the condition under which the loss is admitted.
4. Reference discipline. A changed effective reference scheme is explicit. If the change alters available operations or representation semantics, use A.6.3.RT; apply C.29 when the transition uses a declared mathematical lens. Do not call such a change formatting.
5. No hidden retargeting. Subsystem-to-system, method-to-work, model-to-modeled-system, or episteme-to-publication changes are not same-EntityOfConcern viewing.

For a lightweight check, take each claim in Y—or each group covered by one rule—and point to the source claims and the selection, rewriting, or aggregation rule that licenses it. Mark omitted claim groups. If a result claim cannot be traced this way, treat it as a new claim rather than a viewing result. If support cannot be decided exactly, state the structural or domain check used as an approximation and what it cannot establish. Add a proof only when disagreement, risk, or the receiving use makes it necessary.

Truth of source claims is a separate evaluation. Conservativity says what Y is licensed to claim from the sources; it does not establish that those claims are true in the world or adequate for a decision.