A.7.2:8 - Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

Anti-pattern	Repair
Rank sources or traditions before naming the receiving claim.	Recover exact source content, use function, scope, currentness, and consequence.
Rewrite a premise list while dated applications keep yielding conflicting results.	Repair the smallest method clause or subject-pattern decision that causes the incompatible result, then check the affected application result.
Force one ontology because shared terminology looks desirable.	Permit `contextSplit` or `doNotCompose` when constructions or uses differ.
Treat citation, publication, or a completed review dossier as an obtaining source-use relation.	Require actual consumption by dated decision work for one receiving claim; keep optional content-slice, model-use, currentness, evidence, and disposition records only when this reconciliation uses them.
Let a pattern, source, reader label, system-role kind, or assignment perform reconciliation.	Use A.13 to identify the actual performer and A.15.1 to admit the dated reconciliation Work independently. Retain the separately declared assignment species and obtaining occurrence used by A.13; add F.6 only if the result must also identify the assignment under which that Work was performed. Neither the kind nor the assignment acts.
Copy the common compact into this method.	Cite exact `A7CP-*` claims; keep `A.7.CP` as the authoritative source for the claim content and relation definition.