C.26:4.5 - State-representation coarsening card
This card discipline is active when a fuller state representation is too detailed, unstable, unavailable, or expensive for the current bounded decision and a reduced-detail state representation is useful only under a declared QL cue.
A.6.3.CSC carries controlled coarsened rendering; A.6.3.RT carries same-selected-entity representation-scheme transition; A.19, U.Dynamics, modeling patterns, and ordinary abstraction patterns carry ordinary state abstraction. C.26 carries only the residual QL cue plus the loss/use boundary for this shortcut.
Question-to-pattern map:
| Main question | First FPF pattern or relation |
|---|---|
| Coarsened rendering of source episteme or source publication for narrower use | A.6.3.CSC |
| Same-selected-entity representation-scheme or reasoning-medium transition | A.6.3.RT |
| Cross-context equivalence, substitution, projection, export, or loss | F.9 for an exact SenseCell Bridge and its bounded-use claim; F.9.1 only for an optional stance note about that claim. Use the subject pattern for other export or loss claims. Keep the lens-specific preserved and lost structure here. |
| Measurement coordinate, scale, score, result, or dashboard reading | C.16 |
| Evidence carrier, provenance, method, support, or time window | A.10 |
| Assurance claim, release support, audit, readiness, or compliance use | B.3 |
| Search-space pruning, option generation, or missing alternatives | C.18, C.19, A.19 |
| Residual QL state, probe, frame, export, or coarsening cue after those patterns act | C.26 |
Start with this coarsening mini-card:
| Mini-entry | Question |
|---|---|
| Source | Which fuller state representation, trace set, model, measurement scheme, or dynamics account loses distinctions in the shortcut? |
| Shortcut | Which smaller representation is being used instead, and for which bounded decision or action class? |
| Loss | Which precision, distinction, uncertainty, comparability, traceability, or relation structure is lost? |
| Admissible use | Which bounded decision, probe, comparison, time-window reading, or action class remains admissible for this reduced-detail state representation? |
| Reopen trigger | Which dispute, drift, failure, threshold crossing, bridge demand, or decision change requires return to the source-bearing episteme or source publication? |
For the representation shortcut itself, fill this coarsening card:
| Field | Question |
|---|---|
| Source representation | Which fuller model, state space, trace set, measurement scheme, probability model, dynamics model, or representation loses distinctions in the shortcut? |
| Coarsened representation | Which typed, symbolic, finite, operator-like, Hilbert-like, rough-set, low-bit, or source-loss-affected representation is used instead? |
| Shortcut mechanism | Which projection, typed-state reduction, finite-dimensional representation, operator-like update, rough-set approximation, state aggregation, compression, or linearization is doing the representational work? |
| Shortcut purpose | Which bounded decision, probe, comparison, time-window reading, or action class needs the reduced-detail state representation? |
| What is lost | Which precision, distinction, uncertainty, compatibility, traceability, causal detail, or cross-context relation is lost? |
| Loss budget | How much loss is accepted for this decision, probe, comparison, route, or time window? |
| Admissible use | For which decisions, probes, comparisons, candidate-route selections, or time windows does the shortcut preserve the required distinctions? |
| Non-admissible use | For which claims, audits, bridges, comparisons, future actions, or high-stakes decisions does the shortcut lack the required distinctions, source support, or recoverability? |
| Ordinary explanations still active | Which ordinary abstraction, causal abstraction, approximate causal abstraction, state aggregation, representation learning, POMDP simplification, heuristic compression, CSC, RT, or low-bit implementation account remains sufficient if the QL cue is absent? |
| Evidence or formal source | Which model, trace, experiment, source, or formal argument supports the shortcut rather than merely naming it quantum-like? |
| Reopen trigger | Which dispute, drift, threshold crossing, failure, audit, bridge demand, or decision change requires consulting the source representation or checking the exact subject assertion under an ordinary FPF pattern? |
If the text claims that the shortcut is faster, cheaper, more compressed, more linear, more stable, or more tractable, add this claim declaration. The claim is separate from the coarsening card: the card controls the reduced-detail state representation; the declaration controls the performance or tractability assertion.
| Declaration field | Question |
|---|---|
| Baseline representation and cost | What ordinary model or route is too expensive, and by which resource: time, memory, measurement, coordination, latency, energy, risk, attention, cognitive load, privacy, or social cost? |
| New representation | Which changed representation creates the claimed gain? |
| Mechanism | Which compression, linearization, operator-state update, reduced information-state encoding, shortcut, or approximation mechanism creates the gain? |
| Claimed gain | What exactly becomes faster, cheaper, more stable, smaller, or more tractable? |
| Loss or error budget | Which precision, expressivity, compatibility, comparability, evidence-support class, traceability, or future-use loss is accepted for the intended use? |
| Admissible use | For which decisions, probes, comparisons, candidate-route selections, time windows, or action classes does the declared gain meet the required threshold? |
| Non-admissible use | For which claims, audits, bridges, comparisons, future actions, or high-stakes decisions does the declared gain fail the required threshold? |
| Ordinary alternatives | Which ordinary compression, approximation, abstraction, feature-engineering, active-inference, search, POMDP, or low-bit route was tried or remains sufficient? |
| Evidence or formal source | Which source, model, trace, worked case, benchmark, or formal analogy supports the claimed mechanism? |
| Reopen trigger | Which dispute, drift, threshold crossing, failure, audit, bridge demand, or decision change requires consulting the source representation or checking the exact subject assertion under an ordinary FPF pattern? |
No speed, compression, linearity, or tractability claim follows merely from the words linear, operator, quantum-like, quantized, tokenized, low-bit, finite-dimensional, compressed, or symbolic.
If the shortcut carries a transition-speed, stabilization, or control claim, add the optional dynamics card:
| Dynamics field | Question |
|---|---|
| Rate or acceleration | Which transition, inference, recovery, sensing, routing, or stabilization rate matters? |
| Inertia | What makes the represented state, work routine, boundary condition, or model slow to change? |
| Damping or resistance | What absorbs, slows, filters, or resists the transition? |
| Effort or actuator capacity | Which action, probe, resource, or authority relation can change the transition fast enough? |
| Evidence | Which trace, model, experiment, or operational observation supports the dynamic reading? |