C.26:4.2.1 - Causal-use exit before QL retention

Before retaining QL-lite, QL-NQ, or a quantum-like framing for a claim being made, check whether the actual question is intervention, counterfactual comparison, causal effect, causal fairness, causal policy, off-policy causal evaluation, or realizability of counterfactual-rung data. If so, redirect the claim or question to C.28 before any quantum-like retention.

CC-C26-CAUSAL-EXIT:
If the question under repair is intervention, counterfactual comparison,
causal effect, causal fairness, causal policy, off-policy causal evaluation, or realizability of counterfactual-rung data,
redirect the claim or question to C.28 before retaining QL-lite or QL-NQ.

What changes in practice: “the model is quantum-like” cannot be used to skip causality-ladder rung declaration, causal identification, causal evidence support basis, or counterfactual sampling realizability.

C.26 keeps quantum-like modeling discipline; C.28 governs causal-use support, including counterfactual material.

Use this as a diagnostic sequence before retaining QL wording. DDD, microservice domain analysis, and direct boundary, model-use, local-sense, and Bridge subject patterns stay first for service cuts, integration points, and exported meaning. Retain QL only when one named contextual-model obstruction survives those subject patterns and changes what can admissibly be inferred.

1. Measurement, metric, scale, method, evidence, or assurance load goes first to measurement and evidence patterns: C.16, A.10, or B.3.
2. Bridge, translation, publication availability, rendering, or exported-loss question goes first to its applicable subject pattern: F.9 for an exact SenseCell Bridge; E.24.PUB for publication occurrence, form, and carrier; E.17 only for a current multi-view publication form or face; and E.17.EFP only for a current explanation-faithfulness claim.
3. A causal intervention, command, or routine question goes first to its pattern. For precise Work enactment, recover each exact actual performer System through A.13 and let A.15.1 independently admit the dated Work with its enacted Method. Cite the same obtaining A.13 assignment occurrence, its declared species, and F.6 only when the account or its receiving use expressly consumes precise assignment-bound attribution; F.6 identifies neither assignment nor performer, and missing or failed F.6 leaves the Work intact. A non-performing relation participant stays with its relation and position.
4. Boundary or interface wording, service-interface typing, bridge endpoint, relation precision, or lexeme-collision question goes first to the subject pattern: A.1 for holon delimitation or boundary crossing, A.6.P for relation precision or service/access recovery, A.6.0 or A.6.5 for signature or slot claims, A.6.M for module-interface claims, A.6.F for functional ports or elements, A.6.C only when recovered contract, SLA, protocol, or agreement-like wording bundles promise, utterance or publication, governance, Work or consequence, or evidence claims, A.6.B only for L, A, D, or E statement classification inside a boundary package, and A.7, E.10, or F.18 for wording-use repair.
5. Quality, viability, feedback, or control-tuning question goes first to quality, dynamics, and measurement patterns: C.25, U.Dynamics, and C.16.
6. Suspect option menu, unknown alternative, local plateau, basin movement, or candidate-generation question goes first to search and regime patterns: B.5.2, C.18, C.19, or A.19.
7. Retain QL only for the remaining declared state, probe, export, frame, open-information-system, or coarsening cue.

C.26 does not choose among options, generate missing alternatives, or settle C.11 decision quality. It can mark that the available readings sit in non-shared comparison frames or lack a declared admissible joint comparison relation; the choice or search output still belongs to C.11, B.5.2, C.18, C.19, or A.19.