C.26.1:4.7 - Reroute and disambiguation guide
Use this guide when a draft says that a boundary, system, team, or service is “coupled”, “aligned”, “interacting”, “measured”, “exported”, “synchronized”, or “read”.
| Trigger surface | First question | If yes | If no |
|---|---|---|---|
| “The dashboard shows readiness.” | Did publishing or using the dashboard change readiness behavior, escalation, staffing, or release posture? | Use C.26.1; state probe, update, evidence, and admissible use. | Use ordinary reporting, C.16 for measurement, A.10 for source recovery and bounded reliance, or B.3 for an actual named assurance claim. |
| “The workshop discovered the boundary.” | Did question order, framing, participants, or artifacts change local meaning, ownership, trust, or viability? | Use C.26.1 with this context-cut worked use slice; add F.9 if bridge/export loss is live. | Use ordinary DDD / F.9 bounded-context work. |
| “The API read returns state.” | Is the read path state-changing under interface semantics, timing, cache, consistency, or downstream behavior? | Use C.26.1 if the result is later treated as a passive read. | Use ordinary API semantics, measurement, or data freshness. |
| “The message transferred the decision.” | Did the message change authority, trust, escalation, timing, or local meaning enough that copy or transfer is false? | Use C.26.1 and apply the relevant work or authority pattern to commitments or authority. | Use publication, bridge, or work enactment patterns. |
| “The split improved viability.” | Did the split/probe alter the viability envelope being evaluated? | Coordinate with C.26.3. | Use ordinary boundary, quality-bundle, or architecture patterns. |
When relation wording is load-bearing, do not mint a relation token here. Use A.6.P if the relation or participants remain unclear; use the direct relation pattern when they are already known. Keep local explanatory prose unless the settled relation needs a reusable name under F.18.