C.17:9 - Worked cases
C.17:9.1 - Pump design: stop early or open the measurement branch
Identify P-22 as the exact design episteme. Compared with the admitted five-year pump-design set, its inspected split-clamp arrangement is a supported difference. Assembly evidence supports shorter assembly, and the candidate must not require new tooling. State what was inspected and the limit of that support. Stop here when the discussion needs neither a quantified coordinate nor a reusable result.
To use Novelty value 0.42, cite P22-NoveltyResult-4, an already constituted C.16 measurement-result episteme. Its chain identifies P-22 as measurand, the Novelty Characteristic and Scale, exact similarity Method, the calibrated [0,1] CAD-graph similarity result used by the declared Novelty construction, encoder and model edition, uncertainty, dated measurement Work, actual bindings, time, and evidence. The Method compares P22-CADGraph-7, produced from and representing P-22 under CADGraphProjection-2, with graphs produced by the same projection for every corpus design; the result states that this projection omits surface finish and manufacturing tolerances. If the current action measures novelty, constitute that chain first. State the no-tooling-change coordinate as a C.2.1 ascription under its declared criterion unless it was independently measured.
One CreativityEvaluationResult may cite those coordinates and state only that P-22 is eligible for the current comparison and lies on the declared non-dominated set. Building that result does not assert separate overall-assessment Work.
If an audit later asserts that an overall assessment occurred, identify the evaluator System, its exact assignment, PumpCreativityAssessment-17 Work, and PumpCreativityAssessmentMethod-2; state that the Work enacts the Method. The MethodDescription explains the Method, the result states claims, and coordinate-measurement Work stays separate. Do not add an A.6.1 operation application merely because those values are recorded. If the audit separately asserts an exact operation application or binding, satisfy the current A.6.1 application account and cite that application.
C.17:9.2 - Software and algorithmic design
Software design. In this worked example, ETL-Parallel-12 is compared with 40 admitted internal pipeline designs through ASTGraphSimilarity-3, whose declared Novelty construction uses calibrated [0,1] similarities. The Method compares AST-graph representations produced by the same declared parser and projection for the evaluated design and every corpus design; the result states that runtime configuration and deployment topology are not preserved by that projection. Its Novelty result is 0.36. A fixed-workload benchmark reports an 18% lower p95 latency than the serial baseline, but the segregation-of-duties test fails. The benchmark run, corpus edition, nearest-neighbour report, and policy test are the evidence. The result therefore supports a latency gain but leaves the design ineligible for the stated use; redesign the isolation boundary and repeat the affected tests before any pool or choice decision.
Algorithmic search Work. SpikeSet-7 contains nine dated attempts in three declared approach classes over six hours. Tagged Work records support DiversityOfSearch = 3 classes; the first runnable output appeared after 2 h 10 m. The held-out viability test was never run, so Time-to-First-Viable is not established. The practical action is to run that test, not to relabel time-to-first-runnable as viability.
C.17:9.3 - Health analytics
For Cardio-Readmit-H4, the held-out AUROC is 0.79 against a 0.75 baseline under the frozen test set, clearing the declared uplift threshold of 0.03. The model card, held-out plot, and evaluation Work support that local Use-Value result. No receiving-use pilot has yet been performed at Hospital B, so Transferability there remains unsupported. Use the local result for the applicable pool or choice question, but leave the target-hospital claim open until pilot evidence exists. Use an F.9 Bridge only if the two hospitals’ reference schemes require one.
C.17:9.4 - Product reframing
OnboardingFrame-v1 treats onboarding as one completion task; OnboardingFrame-v2 separates job setup from obtaining the first result. The declared ReframeDelta rule returns BoundaryShift, supported by the frame diff and a simpler causal map. In a four-week A/B comparison, v2 reduces median time-to-value by 22% against the control baseline, clearing the 20% objective. Exploratory Work used 9 of the 12 allowed staff-days, so the realized risk-budget ratio is 0.75 with no overrun. The frame diff, A/B report, WorkPlan, and Work records support the result. This evidence can inform the later choice; it does not make the choice.
C.17:9.5 - Scientific and policy proposals
Scientific proposal. ScalingRelation-S4 has Novelty 0.61 from the declared calibrated [0,1] similarity construction relative to the admitted literature corpus. The Novelty Method compares one text embedding that describes the proposal with embeddings produced by the same encoder for every corpus paper; the result names that projection and states that notation and experimental detail may be lost. Its Surprise is 4.1 bits per token under PriorModel-2, using the same versioned tokenizer and abstract-text sample unit for the proposal and model basis; the per-token normalization handles text length but does not support a claim about equations or full papers. The corpus, neighbour report, model calibration, and derivation evidence support those coordinates, but independent replication is missing. Report the proposal as a preliminary bounded result and seek replication before a reliance claim.
Policy proposal. In a municipal permit-triage pilot, Policy-P8 reduces median processing time by 12% against the prior-procedure baseline and passes the declared legal-form test. Subgroup error evidence required by the equity must-criterion is missing, so ConstraintFit and eligibility are not established. Keep the proposal out of an approval-facing comparison until the subgroup test is complete; the time result remains usable for its narrower operational question.