C.26.1:4.8 - Positive examples and near misses
| Case | Supported C.26.1 use | Near miss and neighboring-pattern handoff |
|---|---|---|
| Readiness dashboard | The readiness score changes team behavior: teams stop surfacing borderline failures because the dashboard is watched by release management. The score is probe-coupled evidence, not a passive readiness copy. | If the dashboard only reports a well-defined measure with no behavior-changing or frame-changing effect, use C.16 and the direct pattern for any evidence claim that is current. |
| API consistency check | A “read” through a cache warms entries and changes later latency, so the readout changes the performance state later used in the decision. | If the call is simply a mutating operation by interface semantics, use ordinary API/work semantics and say so plainly. |
| Survey order | Asking “who owns incidents?” before “which context owns payment failure?” changes the resulting context map and escalation plan. | If different answers merely reveal unresolved meanings, use F.9 / A.6.P first. |
| Event-storming workshop | The workshop produces a map and also changes team alignment, local vocabulary, and backlog priority. | If it only documents known differences, use ordinary DDD and bridge fields. |
| Service split | Splitting Checkout and Payment changes recovery paths and support load, so the split is part of the phenomenon being evaluated. | If the split only reduces deployment coupling with no probe/export effect, use ordinary boundary and quality patterns. |
| Incident metric | Publishing “cache failover is the primary risk” shifts attention, staffing, and reproduction work. | If the metric is only a report of already-carried evidence, use A.10 for any source-recovery or bounded-reliance question, and B.3 only for an actual named assurance claim. |
The positive examples establish probe-coupled interaction readings. Use those results without QL wording when the ordinary subject patterns carry the case, as CC-C26.1.4 permits. Retain QL only when the additional C.26 activation test establishes one named contextual-model obstruction that survives those patterns and changes the admissible inference or action.