C.2.2:7 - Conformance Checklist

Normative.

ID	Requirement	Purpose
CC‑C.2.2‑1 (Triad publication).	Authors of a KD-CAL location SHALL attach formal basis, G, and warrant to one exact claim. A numerical R requires the receiving model; otherwise identify unquantified support and the bounded conclusion.	Keeps warrant attached to its claim without inventing a score.
CC‑C.2.2‑2 (R-only penalty routing).	A conforming implementation of KD‑CAL reuse SHALL satisfy INV‑C2.2‑1.	Ensures declared relation losses reduce warrant without silently mutating expression or scope.
CC‑C.2.2‑3 (Support composition).	A conforming composition SHALL satisfy DEF‑C2.2‑3: identify support roles, compatible scales, and dependencies, and use the justified receiving model or a non-aggregate synthesis. There is no default min or max.	Prevents both overstated assurance and loss of useful complementary support.
CC‑C.2.2‑4 (Relation visibility for reuse).	Authors SHALL name every scope-translation, kind, plane, notation, source-local, model-use, or evidence-reuse relation traversed by the path and cite the fit or loss rule that affects `R_eff`.	Makes each actual reuse loss auditable without inventing one crossing kind.
CC‑C.2.2‑5 (Loss model visibility).	Any numerical reuse loss SHALL identify its receiving quantity, scale, assumptions, derivation or calibration, and actual functions and versions, including Π where used.	Makes the calculation reproducible and its meaning inspectable.
CC‑C.2.2‑6 (Type before scope).	Authors and validators SHALL enforce WFC‑C2.2‑1 for scope composition operations.	Prevents ill-typed scope algebra from creating incoherent reliability claims.
CC‑C.2.2‑7 (Evidence binding).	Authors SHALL bind any asserted `R_eff` to evidence references that enable TA/VA/LA inspection, consistent with the assurance lane discipline (B.3.3) and evidence decay discipline (B.3.4).	Keeps R grounded and updateable.
CC‑C.2.2‑8 (No ordinal arithmetic).	Validators SHALL reject arithmetic that treats ordinal F, CL, or an ordinal R proxy as ratio-scale values. A receiving conversion model must establish meaning, scale, conversion, and assumptions; a penalty table or rescaling alone is insufficient. Formal validity never supplies empirical reliability by itself.	Preserves scale legality and useful formal conclusions.
CC‑C.2.2‑9 (Interpretation conditions declared).	Authors SHALL distinguish design- and run-time assurance and declare `ReferencePlane`, effective scheme, model-use basis, working situation, and `validationMode` where each changes the claim or use.	Makes interpretation auditable without a generic Context identity field.
CC‑C.2.2‑10 (Dependence and scope).	Authors SHALL expose actual shared premises, data, assumptions, and biases. Any assumed independence must be justified for the model and use; different path labels do not suffice. Keep distinct scope slices and counterevidence visible; do not fall back to minimum for entangled support.	Prevents double-counting without erasing complementary evidence.