C.2.2:4.3 - Dependence-sensitive support composition

Definition DEF‑C2.2‑3 (Support composition). For claim c, identify the support actually needed by its receiving use. Distinguish indispensable premises, alternative sufficient arguments, complementary evidence for the same question, support for different scope slices, and counterevidence. A source’s presence in the graph does not make it an indispensable premise. B.1.3 supplies the synthesis Method and its guidance and controller examples.

Let SpineClaims(P) name premises and lemmas actually required by argument P; SpineRelations(P) names the actual scope, kind, plane, notation, source-local, model-use, and evidence-reuse relations it traverses. Satellite citations are not required premises. Retain each contribution’s source, assumptions, scope, and limitations, including shared datasets, duplicated evidence, and common bias.

Choose the operation from the model. B.3 requires the target quantity, compatible scales, dependency assumptions, and warranted operation before an aggregate is calculated. An indispensable weak premise can limit an inference, but min is not a universal probability or warrant fold. Two necessary independent conditions with probabilities 0.9 each give 0.81 for their conjunction; minimum 0.9 overstates it. Without independence, use the warranted conditional model or leave the joint probability unresolved. Monotonicity and boundedness of a proposed rule are insufficient.

Alternative and complementary support. An actually sufficient argument may be usable without the others. A maximum can select the best attested argument value under a model whose result has that meaning; it does not measure combined corroboration. Complementary evidence may strengthen or qualify a conclusion by addressing different rival explanations or limitations, even when neither source is sufficient alone. Count neither publications nor method names as independent confirmation. A shared bias may leave apparent agreement uninformative. There is no universal “never exceed the best source” cap and no entangled-source fallback to minimum.

Scope and conflict. Retain different G_path slices under A.2.6; do not use maximum to hide unsupported regions. For overlapping-scope p and ¬p, preserve credible contrary evidence. Separate claims only by distinctions established by the sources; otherwise narrow, qualify, or withhold the affected conclusion. An uninformative study, a lack of decisive support, and evidence against the claim are not interchangeable.

Useful non-aggregate result. If there is no warranted common model, retain separate support and limitations and give a bounded reasoned synthesis. This may finish the receiving question without a score, penalty table, extra study, or a record merely certifying their omission. The feasibility and worth of further inquiry are separate C.11/C.19.2 questions; their cost does not alter what the current evidence supports.