A.6.B:15a - Probe-coupled boundary claim classification

When boundary text says that an interaction changes the state represented by its output, identify the interaction, the changed state, and the receiving use, then classify the atomic claims through the same L/A/D/E square. Such interactions may include asking a question, measuring or intervening through a metric, reading a dashboard, conducting a workshop, exporting through a Bridge, or making an API read. Probe-coupled boundary language does not create a fifth quadrant.

Action classification:

Copy the boundary sentence being used for a decision.
Split it into its atomic claims before judging it, retaining only the classes present in the source: definition or law, runtime admissibility, generic prescription or individual duty, work effect or evaluated result, and any separate evidence-support claim.
Give each atomic claim its quadrant and any identifier required by a later reference.
Put the state, probe, update, or export part in the quadrant where it belongs rather than treating “quantum-like boundary” as one claim.
Apply A.6.P to reusable relation words; use F.18 only when recovered terms need durable names. Use A.10 for needed evidence support, B.3 for a named assurance question, C.16 for measurement, and F.9 for a Bridge question. Use C.26.1 for the residual probe-coupled question only when the interaction participates in the represented state and its output is being used as a passive read or export despite that decision-relevant effect.
Use a Claim Register row set only when the classified claim set is decision-bearing, reusable, contested, assurance-facing, or likely to be cited across faces; otherwise keep the atomic prose.

For a local working note, atomize the sentence mentally and write one or more atomic L/A/D/E-classified sentences, preserving every source claim. One sentence suffices only when one logical job remains. Use the Claim Register when the claim set must survive reuse or dispute; the phrase “quantum-like boundary” is not a substitute for its separate claims.

Quantum-like boundary phrase hides	Claim class	What the user writes
The term, variable, state, frame, or relation being defined	`L-*` law or definition claim	Definition or invariant, without agent obligation language
When a mechanism admits use of a probe, metric, question, or bridge at the decision point; declaration-level intended-use scope remains in `Signature.Applicability`	`A-*` runtime-admissibility claim	Entry predicate, required current inputs, non-admitted outcome, and neighboring-pattern continuation
What exact policy prescribes about applying, retaining, exposing, or avoiding overuse of the probe result; or which actual bearer has that individually instituted duty; and, if separately claimed, who bears responsibility	generic `D-` prescription or individual `D-` claim about one exact `U.Commitment`; separate direct responsibility claim or missing governor	Exact normative source and rule content for the generic branch; actual duty bearer and referenced L/A/E claim IDs or canonical locations for the individual branch; responsibility predicate and participants only when that relation independently obtains
The actual work effect or observed before-state or after-state, plus any separate evidence relation or carrier used for reliance	`E-*` work-effect or evaluated-result claim; separate evidence-support claim when current	Exact predicate and object, actual Work, evaluation, or observation, conditions and window, and result; use A.10 to recover the independently established support relation and exact carrier only when a receiving use relies on that support

Useful outputs:

a Claim Register row set when decision, reuse, contest, assurance, or cross-face citation needs it;
one or more atomic L/A/D/E-classified sentences preserving every source claim for a local working note;
an ordinary A.6.B L/A/D/E-classified claim set when no probe-coupled state-reading question remains;
the C.26.1:4.2 decision and finish result for a residual probe-coupled question that meets the activation condition above;
the evidence-support, assurance, measurement, or Bridge result or continuation required by A.10, B.3, C.16, or F.9 for the corresponding current question.

Do not write “the boundary is quantum-like” as one claim without L/A/D/E classification. Identify the interaction and its receiving use, split and classify the claims, then apply the C.26.1 activation condition above to any remaining question.