C.22.2:11 - Validation, Reliance, AI-Agent Cues, and Safe Probing
ProblemCard exposes three local fields for downstream use:
- problem-formulation follow-up reason: why this formulation is worth keeping, reviewing, discriminating, or moving onward now;
- validation boundary: what has been checked for the current next use, what may be used now, and which use is governed by another pattern;
- risk condition: the monitored risk, cost-of-error concern, or containment concern that may change the safe next action.
Use these fields to state a local reliance disposition, not to authorize downstream action.
| Card-use condition | Local disposition | Next pattern application |
|---|---|---|
| The current reason is sufficient for the named reversible P2W use. | P2W-ready only for that named use, with effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, qualification window, validation boundary, and stop condition. | Apply measurement, evidence, temporal, refresh, representation, gate, autonomy, Work, or assurance patterns only when those claims are part of the use. |
| The reason is useful but narrower than the attempted use. | Narrow the attempted use; name the narrowed use, blocked attempted use, and stop condition. | Apply the subject pattern for the missing claim, relation, or boundary. |
| Source material, source relation, validation, or currentness is stale, conflicted, uncalibrated, or untied to the current relation. | Choose abstainOrNoChange, refresh, or reopen; name the missing relation, evidence-needed cue when current, and decision point. | Use A.10, G.6, B.3, C.16, C.27, G.11, A.6.3.RT, A.6.4, E.17, F.9, or E.18 according to the reopened relation. |
| The proposed next action can affect the world, spend resources, call tools, delegate to agents, change operational state, or make safety, release, gate, or work claims. | Block local use or name the governing relation; keep only the problem-side cue inside the card. | Apply B.3, A.21, E.16, A.15, A.10, G.6, or B.2.5 when the corresponding controlled-EntityOfConcern relation is current. |
Cause-theory cues may focus problem formulation inside ProblemCard. Association, intervention, counterfactual, responsibility, expected-effect, or causal-evidence claims are governed by C.28 plus evidence, provenance, or assurance patterns when those claims are being made.
Environment design and safe probing may appear as problem signal reference, validation boundary, risk condition, or subject-pattern cue. If the next action can affect a controlled EntityOfConcern, the card names the probe need plus the claim kind named by value that blocks local action; any deontic permission, work authorization, release authorization, or gate passage stays with the subject pattern for that claim.