A.6.RCD:4.2 - Respect substrate authority
A constructor probe is usable only when the selected substrate defines its inputs, output claim, applicability, and relevant laws. The following table is a non-exhaustive set of recurring single-substrate semantic probes. It is neither a universal operator registry nor a claim that any substrate supports the whole list.
| Recurring single-substrate semantic probe | Minimum semantics to recover | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| typed restriction | the base predicate, restricted participant kind or condition, and scope | a narrower claim is not automatically a new relation kind |
| participant permutation or converse | participant correspondence, polarity, and whether the direct subject ontology treats the inverse reading as the same occurrence | syntax does not decide occurrence identity |
| composition | the two or more base predicates, exact shared participant, order or direction, and intermediate witness policy | a hidden intermediate does not disappear from semantics because a query projects it away |
| projection | the source claim, retained participants, hidden participants, and existential or other projection law | projection can yield claim content without yielding an occurrence-identity rule |
| conjunction | all conjuncts, their common applicability, and one truth condition for the compound claim | co-truth does not create a cross-subject relation kind |
| negation or complement | the substrate’s closed-world, open-world, constructive, probabilistic, or other negation law | absence of a base assertion is not automatically a negative relation fact |
| transitive or path closure | admitted edge relation, direction, path rule, zero-length policy, cycle policy, and subject structure | a graph path is a representation or witness; it is not the obtaining relation occurrence |
| aggregation | the population or collection, grouping rule, aggregated value, aggregation operator, empty or duplicate treatment, scope, and applicability | an aggregate or scalar summary does not silently become a relation predicate or occurrence |
| probabilistic operator | the event or sample space, random variables or events, probability operator or model, conditioning, threshold or decision rule, applicability, and uncertainty boundary | a probability, likelihood, or posterior does not silently become a relation predicate, and shared event labels do not bridge algebras |
Cross-algebra claim-use boundary. Ask how the named decision or work occurrence actually uses each result. For every consumed result, state its own obtaining premise-use, reference-use, decision-use, or other direct use relation under the pattern for that question. If the decision is one actual application of a declared operation, an exact A.6.1 argument binding may state that use instead. If no current predicate definition, applicability condition, or occurrence rule can state the required result-use relation for those participants, return missing-governor; if the governor exists and the available case basis is sufficient to apply its positive test but that test fails, return factually unsupported; if a fact needed to decide the test is unavailable, return missing-information. Co-publication, a shared topic, or one decision record supplies no use relation.
Stop there when those independent uses close the named decision or work question. Open a separate joint predicate only when the decision genuinely depends on a joint condition that the independent use relations cannot express; then name that condition and use A.6.RCD to derive exactly it. Do not add a generic joint-use relation or record merely because one decision cites results from two algebras.
When a consumed result relies on an obtaining F.9 Bridge between two exact F.17 SchemeSenseCell values, cite that Bridge and the separate bounded-use claim; add CL or a loss note only when the receiving use needs it. When the result instead crosses exact ReferencePlanes, cite the applicable plane relation and policy. If both facts are current, state both under their own predicates. A cell or plane difference alone creates neither relation, and one branch never fabricates the other. A Bridge-related penalty is current only when an actual named B.3 assurance claim uses an applicable declared domain model, calibrated mappings where needed, stated dependencies and assumptions, and current case facts whose rule yields that penalty. It affects only the calculated assurance result for that named use; it supplies no default fold and changes no independently stated characteristic.
A local compound claim needs recoverable constructor semantics, but it does not need a separately materialized substrate document. Authors MUST name and pin the substrate when the derivation is nontrivial, intended for interoperability, used as proof, or becomes a reusable predicate definition. If no current substrate supplies the proposed operator, return a missing-substrate blocker rather than improvising a universal constructor algebra.