A.6.6:5 - Archetypal Grounding
A.6.6:5.1 - System archetype: calibration to a standard
Tell. A lab instrument channel TC‑17 is described as “anchored to ITS‑90”. Later, the reference standard is swapped, the phrase “still anchored” is kept, and the applicability window silently expands. Downstream work disagrees and nobody can reconstruct what changed.
Show. First state the direct assertion: TC-17 is calibrated to ITS-90 for rig R3 over 0–200 °C during the stated calibration interval. Apply the calibration predicate and stop there if this answers the use. When a later publication or comparison needs the exact assertion edition, show the same claim in an optional scoped record:
BD#Calib_TC17_v5 :=
〈 dependent = ThermocoupleChannelRef(TC-17),
base = StandardRef(ITS-90 / CalStd-2025-09),
directRelationKind = calibratedTo,
assertionPolarity = affirmative,
scope = WorkScope{rig=R3, range=[0..200]°C},
gammaTime = interval[2025-09-01, 2026-03-01] 〉
When a later decision relies on this assertion, cite the exact A.2.4 evidence-use relation from the calibration-certificate episteme to the assertion. Use A.10 only if that decision also needs the producing Work, operation result, carrier, provenance, or currentness path. Then distinguish changes by what actually changed:
- New standard ⇒ rebase + refreshWitnesses.
- Wider applicability window ⇒ retime and likely refreshWitnesses.
- Relation-kind change (“not calibration, just normalisation”) ⇒ changeDirectRelationKind is not an edit; mint a new assertion or declaration. Claim continuity with the prior episteme only when that history is needed and C.2.1:4.5’s rule and case facts establish it.
A.6.6:5.2 - Episteme archetype: an evaluation result used as evidence
Tell. A report says that model M improved accuracy by 4%. The team points to EvalRun-2025-10-12, but that Work occurrence is neither the claim nor an evidence relation, and its log carrier does not become evidence merely by being attached.
Show. First recover the accuracy measure, reference condition or population, and percentage convention from the reported comparison. If those operands cannot be recovered, the exact 4% comparison claim remains unidentified; stop before relying on that numerical target. Once they are recovered, identify the result episteme that states the measured comparison and the target claim about the 4% improvement. State the exact A.2.4 evidence-use relation between that episteme and claim, including the relevant ClaimScope, polarity, window, and receiving use. If the decision also needs replayable source, carrier, provenance, currentness, or bounded-reliance information, use A.10 to cite the evaluation Work, its actual operation-result binding, the result episteme, the log carrier, and their independently obtaining direct relations.
Stop with the short evidence-use statement when it answers the question. No validatedBy(claim, Work) edge or scoped base-declaration record is required. If a project later needs a reusable evidence-relation declaration, that direct relation must first have its own participant meanings, predicate, applicability, and occurrence-identity rule.
A.6.6:5.3 - Structural archetype: constructive grounding of a model edge
Tell. Suppose a B.3.5 assurance requirement for this publication requires a recoverable constructor trace. A structural edge is published (“A componentOf B”) without that trace. It becomes treated as “obvious”, while the construction chain is not recoverable. Ordinary parthood does not require this trace; the failure here concerns the selected hypothetical assurance requirement.
Show. First state and test the direct tv:groundedBy assertion between the model edge and constructor trace. Stop when that assertion answers the use. If a publication needs a stable assertion edition with its current qualifiers, it may represent that C.2.1 episteme as:
BD#EdgeGrounding_ComponentOf_17 :=
〈 dependent = WMEdgeRef(Edge:componentOf#17),
base = TraceRef(Γ_m:ComposeCAL#c17),
directRelationKind = tv:groundedBy,
assertionPolarity = affirmative,
scope = PublicationScope{view=WMCardLite, system=S, line=L3},
gammaTime = snapshot(2025-11-02) 〉
The printed trace reference names the intended constructor trace; its presence does not establish the trace or the grounding relation. If another use relies on the assertion that the grounding relation obtains, cite its exact evidence-use and provenance relations separately. This example shows why “grounding” must be disambiguated: here it is a declared constructive relation with an explicit base (trace), not a vague claim of “stability”.