C.22:5.2b - Evolution and currentness boundaries

Use C.22 to revise the smallest affected identity or declaration-content component; identify the resulting episteme and claim a new TaskSignature edition only under the identity, membership, and continuity conditions in C.22:5.2. A changed problem formulation requires C.22.2 before a replacement assignment is made. G.11 governs relied-on source edition, freshness, decay, telemetry, and currentness relations; its result may trigger signature review but does not rewrite the signature by itself. C.18 and C.19 govern archive, front, lineage, and live-pool evolution. G.5 governs selected-set and method-family selector results. E.23 governs repeated object-version improvement. C.22 introduces no local refresh object and does not rewrite earlier selector results or dated Work without an explicit dependency.

TaskKind fills SubjectKind. TaskFamilyRef? names one comparison-relevant family in Vocabulary when specialization, transfer, or parity is live. KindSet and A.2.6 scope slices determine the ranged extent. They remain declaration content, distinct from a selected method or selector result.

DesignRunTag hygiene. Do not mix DesignRunTag positions in one signature edition. If design-side information is reused in run-time Work, identify the actual receiving Work and its relations independently. Cite an E.18 structural GateCrossing only when a selected transformation-flow use contains that occurrence; it does not require a package and does not establish an F.9 Bridge.

C.22:5.2.1 - Specialization-claim reference discipline (normative)

A claim that one holder, dyad, team, or explicitly scoped specialist portfolio acquired usable specialization is complete only when it states one declared TaskFamilyRef or TaskSignature, one named work-measure threshold target, an adaptation budget, and the freshness or provenance basis for reuse. A method may be selected, refined, or retired as part of that story, but it is not the subject of the specialization claim. The TaskSignature declaration and assignment remain rich enough for the same task family and work target to stay admissible in C.22.1 adaptation signatures, G.5 specialization profiles, and G.9 adaptation parity without reconstructing the claim from narrative prose.

Low-human-overlap or newly discovered task families remain admissible when those task-family or signature references are explicit by value.