C.16.Q:12 - Relations

• Lives in: C.16 characterization pattern nest as the quality-term realization of E.10.ARCH and C.16.P.
• Builds on: E.10.ARCH for shared wording-use restoration architecture; C.16.P for characteristic and scale exits; A.2.6 for explicit scope and Γ_time; A.17, A.18, and C.16 for admissible measurable characteristics; C.25 for engineering Q-Bundle publication.
• Coordinates with: A.6.P when recovered content is relation construction rather than evaluative characterization; A.6.A to recover an ambiguous action-oriented claim or question, then its subject pattern; C.2.2a, A.16, A.16.1, A.16.2, B.4.1, and B.5.2.0 for language-state positions, early cues, next-use docking, and retreat or reopen; use A.16.0 only when lineage, branch, loss, or an actual responsibility-handoff history itself must be published as an explicit trajectory account; C.2.LS, C.2.4, C.2.5, C.2.6, and C.2.7 for language-state facets; C.2.1 for effective ReferenceScheme, exact result-episteme identity, and optional EpistemeEmpiricalGroundingRelation; A.2.6 for U.ClaimScope and U.ContextSlice; A.19.CPM for comparison; A.10 for evidence-provenance and bounded reliance; C.17, C.18, and C.19 for selector value, novelty, diversity, and policy; E.17.0 and E.17.2 for exact viewpoint epistemes and U.ViewpointRef; C.30.AD and C.30.ASV for architecture-description and structural-view use; F.9 for exact cross-local Bridge occurrences and bounded-use claims; F.9.1 only for separate optional stance notes about those claims; and A.6.B when repaired ascriptions become boundary-bearing.
• Publishes vocabulary through: E.10, F.17, and F.18 when the qualityTermAscription repair-form skeleton, the QualitySense starter set, and the red-flag rewrites become stable shared vocabulary.

C.16.Q:12.1 - Language-space refactor note

This pattern uses endpoint-first assignment rather than universal governance of all quality language. qualityTermAscription(...) remains useful as a transitional repair form, but it is not the required resting place or durable local record kind for every repaired use of quality.

C.16.Q:12.2 - Explicit endpoint selection

Admissible endpoints after repair include:

• a single Characteristic,
• a Q-Bundle,
• an E.21 PatternQualityQBundle, when the bearer is one FPF pattern version and the evaluative claim asks whether the pattern is good enough for a declared reader, use, and scope. In this case, do not assign the claim to general C.25 unless the bearer is a non-pattern engineering quality family,
• an Objective,
• an explanatory-merit bundle,
• a selector-value endpoint.

Bare quality in Tech prose should therefore be banned or rewritten immediately using the applicable endpoint pattern or explicit endpoint source relation. If that endpoint is already known, qualityTermAscription(...) need not remain in the published normal form.

C.16.Q:12.3 - What C.16.Q leaves to other patterns

C.16.Q does not define or test articulation-state characteristics, Bridge truth, bounded-use claims, stance-note identity, evidence-provenance, empirical grounding, comparison operations, viewpoint resolution, or representation factors. Use A.16, C.2.LS, C.2.4, C.2.5, C.2.6, C.2.7, F.9, F.9.1, A.10, C.2.1, A.19.CPM, E.17.0, or the applicable representation pattern for those questions.