C.16.Q:4.4 - Required slots for a conforming qualityTermAscription

A conforming qualityTermAscription SHALL make explicit:

1. Bearer tuple. Name the exact evaluated bearer designator or tuple and its arity. A description, carrier, evaluator, or result claim cannot silently replace that bearer.

2. QualitySense. Name the intended evaluative family.

3. Effective ReferenceScheme. State the effective U.ReferenceScheme by value so every designator and local sense in the ascription is interpretable. A generic context label or a representation scheme is not a substitute.

4. Probe or model frame. Name the exact domain-local exemplar pack, probe pack, test or criticism pack, Q-bundle definition, CG-frame, acceptance specification, control horizon, or other governed probe/model configuration.

5. Comparison frame. Name the exact A.19.CPM-governed comparison configuration separately, including the effective comparator and comparison scope when a comparison is made. Publish none when the ascription proposes no comparison; do not let the probe/model frame silently select one.

6. Evaluator and viewpoint reference. State the evaluator or policy and, independently, either one U.ViewpointRef or none. A non-none reference SHALL resolve to one exact viewpoint episteme under E.17.0; neither the reference nor its resolution is the evaluator.

7. Normal form and result boundary. State whether the ascription uses SignalPack, Characteristic, Bundle, or Objective. If separately performed assessment work produced a result claim, cite that exact C.2.1 episteme through qualityResultClaimRef; do not identify the work, result, bearer, or transitional record with one another.

8. ClaimScope, selected slices, and time. State one U.ClaimScope and its exact U.ContextSlice membership when the members matter. State Γ_time when omission changes meaning. U.WorkScope and U.PublicationScope remain with their own work or publication claims rather than substituting for this claim scope. Freshness, qualification, and evidence-decay windows remain in their exact evidence, capability, or currentness lanes rather than being smuggled into quality.

9. Reference plane when relevant. Name the plane when the same trigger phrase could concern the EntityOfConcern being described, its description, a carrier, or a publication face.

10. Representation scheme and substrate when relevant. Keep the effective reference scheme distinct from any representation scheme, viewpoint-specific decoding convention, or embodied-kinesthetic, latent-distributed, symbolic-local, or hybrid substrate. Name each when omission changes interpretation.

11. Witnesses, evidence use, and empirical grounding when relied on. Name the witnesses relied on for this use. If an evidence-provenance path is relied on, use A.10 for its descriptive account and cite each obtaining direct relation under the pattern that defines it. When empirical grounding is at issue, independently cite an obtaining EpistemeEmpiricalGroundingRelation, or state none; witness or record presence does not create that relation.

12. Cross-local and endpoint boundaries. Cite an exact F.9 Bridge occurrence and bounded-use claim only when they independently exist. Cite a Card only when that optional package exists, and cite an F.9.1 stance note only when its EntityOfConcern is that claim. State the endpoint pattern or endpoint source relation, the admissible use, and necessary applicability or stop conditions. Add an explanatory non-admissible-use guard only under F.19:4’s independent-ground, plausible-reader, contribution, and smallest-clear-correction test.