C.2.2:4.8 - Minimal authoring recipe

A minimal, conforming KD‑CAL authoring flow for reliability is:

1. Fix the typed claim. State the claim as a typed proposition about an EntityOfConcern (Kind‑CAL, C.3).
2. Declare claim scope. Write G explicitly using A.2.6 operators; avoid scope-by-wording.
3. Declare interpretation conditions. State design or run stance, ReferencePlane, effective scheme, model-use basis, working situation, and validationMode ∈ {postulate, inferential, axiomatic} only where each changes this claim or its use. G already carries claim scope; do not add a generic Context identifier.
4. Bind evidence. Attach evidence stubs and lane tags (TA/VA/LA) and validity windows / decay policy where applicable (B.3.3, B.3.4).
5. Identify support roles and dependence. Distinguish required premises, sufficient alternatives, complementary support, scope slices, and counterevidence. Identify duplicated data, shared assumptions, and plausible common biases.
6. Choose a justified calculation or a non-aggregate synthesis. Name the receiving quantity, compatible scales, assumptions, and model before any numerical fold. Otherwise retain separate support and a reasoned bounded conclusion; do not substitute a universal min or max.
7. Name actual relations on reuse. Use A.2.6 for an applicable scope translation, C.3/C.3.3 for a kind relation, F.9 for a semantic relation between exact local-sense cells, and the direct pattern for notation, plane, model-use, or evidence reuse. Record the fit or loss declared by each traversed relation. If a required relation is absent or unresolved, stop that reuse; a generic cross-context Bridge cannot substitute for it.
8. Return the usable result. State F, G, and the supported conclusion with its warrant and limitations. Publish R numerically only under the justified receiving model, with the actual calculation and relied-on loss definitions. A formal conclusion does not require an empirical score. Inquiry or action choice, if needed, remains separate.