C.25:20a - Viability-envelope, quantum-like, and temporal-claim relation note

Use C.25 for the quality-family decomposition needed by a quality claim, proxy metric, trade-off, gate, or report. A viability claim should not become quantum-like merely because it involves uncertainty, feedback, several qualities, or changing operating conditions; a temporal claim should not become a Q-Bundle merely because the working phrase mentions speed, cadence, rhythm, or recovery.

Practical reading:

Decide whether one Characteristic answers the quality question; if it does, stop there.
If several differently typed contributors are load-bearing, identify the bearer and include only those measures, scopes, windows, mechanisms, statuses, or evidence anchors.
If one proxy or this proportional bundle answers the receiving question, stay in C.25.
Open C.26.3 only when several characteristics must remain inside a viable region under disturbance and a candidate intervention, boundary condition, adaptation cost, or failure mode matters.
Open C.27 only when a temporal claim is being used to change action—for example, when rate-change, effort, window, resistance, recovery, or cadence changes that action. Minimum viability-envelope note:

Field	Required content
Bearer	One exact `U.System` under A.1 when that System is the subject; or one exact `A.22` `U.Structure` when selected organization is the subject, with independently identified constituents, selected obtaining relations, applied constraints, and one selection-use frame. A service label, team label, or list of system-role kinds and assignment occurrences does not identify the bearer by itself.
Protected promise / function	The promise, function, use, operating regime, or stakeholder value the envelope protects
Variables	Which qualities, constraints, resources, risks, or state descriptors define the envelope
Viable region / bounds	What counts as inside, near edge, degraded, or outside the envelope for this use
Disturbance class	What perturbation, demand shift, environment change, probe, or boundary condition stresses the envelope
Actuators	Which proposed work, design move, policy, boundary change, sensor change, or resource change could alter the bearer or its operating conditions; use C.26.3 to recover each candidate intervention’s proposal-side object and distinguish any performed work or resulting change claimed to exist
Trade-off / loss	What gets worse, hidden, coarsened, delayed, or made more expensive
Admissible use	Which action, decision, relation, or triage use the envelope reading can carry
Non-admissible use	Which release, audit, assurance, or universal quality claim requiring additional support it does not support
Failure mode	What it means to leave the envelope or to mistake one proxy for the envelope

Useful outputs:

one C.2.1 quality-claim episteme with Q-Bundle-shaped content when the issue is quality decomposition;
a C.26.3 envelope-regulation note when probes, candidate interventions, or boundary conditions change the admissible viability reading;
a C.27 temporal-claim adequacy card when a claim used to change action says that an intervention changes a rate, recovery, or cadence; state its effort, window, and resistance where load-bearing;
no QL wording when ordinary quality-bundle, proxy, feedback, or control tuning carries the work.

C.25:20b - Architecture-decision Q-Bundle boundary

C.32.P2S, C.32.PAD, and C.32.ADA may cite exact C.25 quality-claim epistemes or ClaimAddresses as architecture-characteristic inputs, accepted-loss structure, guardrail rows, feedback concerns, or adequacy concerns. C.25 keeps their Q-Bundle claim content, bearer, scope, measures, mechanisms, qualification window, and evidence distinct from the problem-to-structure architecturing flow, project architecture decision relation, and ADR-like publication projection.