C.11:5 - Archetypal Grounding
C.11:5.1 - System grounding
Tell. A research team already has three experiment plans on the table. The option set exists. The real question is to decide which plan to run and whether one more measurement is worth the delay.
Show. The DecisionSubject is the team, the DecisionSubjectGranularity is team-level, the OptionSet is the three current plans, the team’s PreferenceOrder puts risk reduction ahead of schedule convenience, and the current OutcomeModel still carries calibration uncertainty. The extra calibration run belongs in the ProbeActionSet, its one-day delay is part of the ProbeBudget, and the practical question is whether its ValueOfInformation exceeds its CostToProbe by enough to change the emitted ChoiceResult under the current ChoiceRule.
Show. If the extra calibration run could still change which plan survives, the one-day delay fits the remaining ProbeBudget, and the expected gain justifies its CostToProbe, the right ChoiceResult is probe again with that exact calibration run named. If the measurement can no longer overturn the ranking, the right ChoiceResult is choose now with the winning plan and the reason further probing is no longer worth its cost.
Show. A finished result here should therefore read like one decision record, not one research-theory aside: “Team-level chooser; three current plans; risk reduction preferred; calibration uncertainty still live; one extra calibration run remains feasible and could still overturn the current ranking; its expected gain justifies CostToProbe, including the one-day delay; ChoiceResult = probe again with calibration run.” Or, after that probe is no longer worth doing: “ChoiceResult = choose plan B now because the remaining calibration gain no longer justifies one more day of delay.”
Show. Use C.38 if the team must turn labels or fragments into complete ways of obtaining one result. Use C.39 if a plan still lacks an explanation of how to obtain that result, or C.40 if the team can vary a plan and needs to examine the difference. Use C.18 when the team needs a generation account or archive/front claim; C.19 for exploration policy over the plan pool; and C.24 for the run sheet and execution order after choice.
C.11:5.2 - Episteme grounding
Tell. A model-selection comparison takes three already-articulated explanations and asks whether one more observation or one more comparison pass is rational before preferring one explanation over the others.
Show. C.11 governs the decision doctrine over the current explanation set: one BeliefState, one OutcomeModel, one explicit PreferenceOrder or EvaluativeMeasure, and, when the case needs it, either one InterventionModel or one CounterfactualModel plus one SubjunctiveDependenceRelation, rather than one thinner evidential comparison. When another model comparison pass is on the table, ValueOfComputation belongs here as part of the current choice doctrine rather than as one later planning afterthought.
Show. If one more comparison pass cannot realistically change which explanation survives, the decision record should not end with “more analysis may help.” It should end with one ChoiceResult that prefers the current explanation now. If one more pass could still reverse the ordering and is cheap enough to justify, the decision record should say exactly which pass is worth doing and what ambiguity it is expected to resolve.
Show. A lawful closing line here is therefore something like: “ChoiceResult = choose model 2 now because the surviving uncertainty no longer changes the ordering under the current evidence” or “ChoiceResult = run one additional comparison pass on models 1 and 2 because the current outcome model still cannot distinguish their failure costs.” Anything vaguer leaves the decision question unfinished.
Show. This pattern does not yet govern open-ended hypothesis generation and does not yet govern operational rollout. Those questions stay outside this pattern even when the decision later feeds them.
C.11:5.3 - Collective and contextual grounding
Tell. A clinical board must decide whether to escalate a patient now or order one more test. The board is the chooser, not one isolated individual, and the result shifts when the case is discussed in prognosis-first versus risk-first order.
Show. C.11 keeps the case legible by typing the chooser as one DecisionSubject at explicit DecisionSubjectGranularity, keeping the available actions as one current OptionSet, keeping one explicit BeliefState and OutcomeModel around those actions, and asking whether another test belongs in the ProbeActionSet with enough expected value to justify its CostToProbe.
Show. Active-inference-adjacent pressure is visible because the chooser is embodied, online, and socially coupled; quantum-like pressure is visible because context and question order change the comparison state. C.11 keeps both repaired limitations visible without pretending that the whole pattern has already become one full active-inference or quantum-like formal package.
Show. If the order effect still changes which option survives, the comparison should say that directly and keep the comparison unfinished. The next comparison move is then either one framing-stabilizing probe or declaring the comparison order under which the current result will be judged. It should not hide that instability inside one vague statement that the board has mixed intuitions.
Show. An admissible output here therefore looks like one of three concrete records:
ChoiceResult = probe again with one rapid diagnostic test because the current prognosis-first versus risk-first framing still changes which option survives;ChoiceResult = choose now and escalate because, under the fixed risk-first order and current evidence, no remaining feasible test can reverse the survivor relation before delay increases harm;ChoiceResult = reroute to C.24 because the board has already chosen escalation and the next task is now treatment sequencing rather than local choice.
Show. The output still has to be one actionable record. If the current result cannot say which of those three forms is now lawful, then the contextual pressure has been noticed but not yet carried into one usable decision result.