C.26.3:4.2 - Finish conditions
Finish with one of these results:
| Result | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Envelope claim | Write one C.2.1 episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the exact viability bearer and whose ClaimGraph states the protected promise/function, envelope variables, viable region/bounds, disturbance, sensors/probes, boundary condition, and failure mode. When regulation is proposed, also state the candidate interventions, trade-off condition, and adaptation cost. Its effective ReferenceScheme supplies the reading context. |
| Candidate-intervention recovery or redesign | Recover the direct object first. Revise only the current proposal—its Method or description, setting proposal, WorkPlan, access or permission claim, or Bridge proposal or description—and identify any dated Work, actual change, obtaining relation occurrence, and resulting state separately. A fixed F.9 Bridge is not an intervention object: after an endpoint sense or profile changes, test another F.9 candidate and identify it only if the predicate obtains. |
| Measurement/probe redesign | Redesign a dashboard, alert, health check, readiness score, or review process because it distorts the envelope it reports. |
| Neighbor coordination without QL | Keep the C.26.3 envelope-regulation claim and use C.25, C.16, A.6, A.15, U.Dynamics, C.18, C.19, or A.19 for the exact neighboring objects and claims. Omit C.26 / QL when no contextual-model obstruction remains. |
| No envelope claim | Drop the viability-envelope wording when the exact bearer and its identity basis, protected promise/function, viable region/bounds, disturbance, or failure mode cannot be stated. A proposed regulation also needs at least one candidate intervention recovered under its direct pattern and its adaptation cost. An envelope diagnosis with no intervention yet may retain only the supported diagnostic claim. |