C.11:12a - Quantum-like choice-boundary note

Use C.11 first when the question is local choice, belief, preference, comparison, question order, option-menu framing, or an incompatible-question effect inside one decision situation. Quantum-like wording is retained only when it adds a concrete residual order-effect, probe, frame, or comparison reading that ordinary decision or probability language would hide.

Decision repair sequence:

State the current DecisionSubject, OptionSet, comparison basis, and ChoiceRule.
Ask whether the apparent QL issue changes the local choice result: choose now, reject current set, probe again, or reroute.
If the issue is question order, incompatible questions, response-replicability tension, non-shared comparison frames, or CbD-style variable identity / joint-availability trouble inside the current option set, keep the QL repair inside C.11.
If the current option set itself is suspect, incomplete, generated by the wrong frame, or still needs expansion/reframing/search, leave C.11. Use C.39 for a missing explanation of how to obtain the result or C.40 for feasible variation and examination of usable material. Use C.18 when a generation account or archive/front claim is needed; C.19 for live-pool policy; A.19 for the declared CharacteristicSpace or reusable predicate; or B.5.2 for abductive hypothesis formation, according to the question that needs repair.
If the issue changes boundary state, bridge/export faithfulness, coordinated-work evidence, measurement admissibility, or viability envelope, apply the pattern governing that claim.
Emit one ChoiceResult and one next question; do not leave the QL branch as a theory label.

When the question leaves local choice, apply the subject pattern instead of stretching C.11:

Question that appears in the decision case	First pattern
Boundary interaction, API read, workshop, dashboard, or message changes the represented state	`C.26.1` only for the remaining state or probe question, with `A.6`, `A.6.B`, and `A.6.P` still active
Cross-context export, translation, or same-label comparison loses state or comparability	`F.9`
Coordinated work evidences a state no report faithfully carries	`A.15` plus evidence patterns, with `C.26.2` only for the remaining low-recoverability distributed-state reading
Measurement, metric, survey, or score frame changes the represented state	`C.16` plus evidence patterns
Viability envelope, adaptation cost, or boundary-maintenance decision is load-bearing	`C.25` for a quality bundle with several differently typed contributors; `C.26.3` for a multi-characteristic viability envelope under disturbance when a candidate intervention, boundary condition, adaptation cost, or failure mode matters. Add `C.26` for a remaining probe/export/frame/coarsening question only when an exact contextual-model obstruction still changes what may be inferred or done after the ordinary patterns have carried their part.
Current option set is suspect, incomplete, frame-generated, or still being expanded/reframed/searched	Use `C.39` for a missing explanation of how to obtain the result or `C.40` for feasible variation and examination of usable material. Use `C.18` when a generation account or archive/front claim is needed; `C.19` for live-pool policy; `A.19` for the declared CharacteristicSpace or reusable predicate; or `B.5.2` for abductive hypothesis formation, according to the question that needs repair.

Useful outputs:

choose now under a declared order/frame;
probe again because another question order, response-replicability check, or frame test could still change the survivor relation;
reroute because the live problem is no longer local choice;
no QL wording when ordinary uncertainty, preference conflict, or option-generation work is enough.

C.11 may cite C.26 as the common quantum-like modeling lens only for the residual question after the local-choice split is applied. It is not the whole-cluster pattern for boundary, bridge/export, distributed-evidence, viability, or state-representation coarsening claims.