A.6.M:4.5 - Worked slices

Ports line up.

Phrase:
  "The ports line up, so the modules are compatible."

ModuleRelationRepairNote:
  wholeHolonRef: VehicleControlSystem
  candidateModuleHolonRef: BrakeControllerPackage
  effectiveReferenceScheme: VehicleControlInterfaceScheme-2026Q2
  claimScope: BrakeControllerReleaseUse-2026Q2
  directModuleRelationDisposition: noDirectRelationClaimed
  boundaryRef: BrakeControlBoundary
  interfaceSpecificationGap: endpoint names are present, but protocol and semantic conditions are still missing
  admissibilityConditions: not yet declared
  substitutabilityPolicyRef: missing
  changePolicyRef: missing
  claimBoundary: interface-spec repair; no evidence or gate claim yet
  notAModuleBecause: port labels alone do not establish implemented interface compatibility
  governedNonModuleClaimPatternRefs: A.6.5 for endpoint slots; A.6.B only if L, A, D, or E boundary-package statement classification is current; A.6.M only if a module-interface or substitution claim remains
  stopCondition: endpoint slots and missing interface-spec fields are visible

Open platform claim.

Phrase:
  "This is an open platform."

OpenArchitectureClaim:
  architectureClaimRef:
  platformGrammarRef:
  interfaceSpecificationRefs:
  variabilitySlotRefs:
  substitutabilityPolicyRef:
  changePolicyRef:
  conformanceExpectationRefs:
  evidenceOrSourceRelianceRefs?:
  nonAdmissibleUse:
    "open" does not by itself prove substitutability, interoperability,
    assurance, procurement suitability, or architecture quality

The first slice repairs the claim without requiring measurement. The second slice applies MOSA-like conformance expectations and substitution policy only for the conformance or substitution claim being made.

Supplier-diversity, procurement suitability, use-context compatibility, business constraint, policy authorization, and provider-selection claims are not module-interface fields. If those claims are being made, A.6.M names only the module-interface slice; non-module selection, procurement, work, role, evidence, assurance, gate, release, and mechanism claims are governed by the patterns named in A.6.M:12.

Team boundary claim.

Phrase:
  "The team communication boundary matches the module boundary."

ModuleRelationRepairNote:
  wholeHolonRef: PaymentsPlatform
  candidateModuleHolonRef: SettlementService
  effectiveReferenceScheme: PaymentsPlatformInterfaceScheme-2026Q2
  claimScope: SettlementServiceProductLineUse-2026Q2
  directModuleRelationDisposition: noDirectRelationClaimed; team/module correspondence remains diagnostic
  boundaryRef: SettlementServiceBoundary
  interfaceSpecificationGap: the service API exists, but semantic versioning, data schema, and semantic conditions are incomplete
  admissibilityConditions: admitted team-delivery and on-call responsibility predicates obtain for their actual Systems, scopes, and intervals; otherwise record the exact missing governor; substitutability not established
  substitutabilityPolicyRef: missing
  changePolicyRef: missing
  claimBoundary: exact system-role assignment, direct responsibility relation, Work, and procedural correspondence first; module-interface relation only after boundary and interface specification are declared
  notAModuleBecause: team communication boundary and an independently obtaining delivery-responsibility relation do not by themselves establish module interface, substitutability, or compatibility
  governedNonModuleClaimPatternRefs: A.15 and A.2 for team and work claims; C.29 if the team-to-module correspondence is claimed as homomorphism-like or almost-same structure; A.6.M only for the declared module-interface relation
  stopCondition: the correspondence is usable as an architecture diagnostic, not as proof

The third slice uses Conway-like mirroring as a diagnostic prompt. It does not make organization structure, communication relations, a system-role assignment, or delivery responsibility into module-interface structure by identity. The responsibility claim remains valid only through its own admitted direct predicate or returns the exact missing governor.

Proxy-cost replay: if a repair proposes more modules, more open interfaces, or more parallel transformation-flow paths, name what may get worse before claiming improvement. Synchronization work, communication overhead, conformance work, shared-resource pressure, hidden exception cost, or cross-boundary change cost can become the claim being made. A.6.M repairs only the module-interface relation; speedup, bottleneck, modularity, measurement, work, and quality tradeoffs are governed by C.29, E.18, C.31, C.16, A.15, or the related subject pattern named by value when that related claim is being made.