C.16.Q:10 - Rationale

C.16.Q makes one strategic move:

The word “quality” is not treated as one concept. It is treated as a family of evaluative ascriptions whose members differ by substrate, articulation mode, bearer, effective scheme, probe/model configuration, comparison configuration, ClaimScope, and admissible evaluative normal form.

This lets FPF discuss:

• Pirsig-like preconceptual fit,
• representation-learning and neuro-symbolic latent fit,
• explanation quality in criticism-driven inquiry,
• architecture-description fitness under a viewpoint,
• engineering quality families,
• use-value in open-ended evolution,
• control adequacy in action loops,

without forcing them into one false universal scalar.

It also makes the distributed-vs-local issue explicit:

• some senses originate in embodied or latent-distributed substrates,
• some are only publishable as symbolic-local CHR, bundle, and objective forms,
• and some require an explicit projection from the first into the second.

It also makes the bearer and plane issue explicit:

• some uses evaluate the EntityOfConcern being described,
• some evaluate its description under a viewpoint,
• some evaluate a carrier or publication face,
• and those uses must not be collapsed without an explicit bearer lane and, when needed, a declared referencePlane.

That is exactly where semantic drift usually starts; C.16.Q turns that drift into an auditable design choice.