C.27:5 - Optional Boundary-Trigger Reference
Skip this section for ordinary local diagnosis and planning. It is a trigger-and-destination map, not a form. The examples in each row are representative rather than exhaustive.
| Trigger in the supported use | Distinction C.27 must not hide | Exact destination |
|---|---|---|
| rate, measure, metric, score, proxy, or base-characteristic wording is not yet recoverable | do not guess the characteristic or measure from a familiar word | C.16.P |
| rate or rate-change measurement | base characteristic, coordinate construction when current, construction method, sampling window, comparability, noise or stability, and evidence legality | A.19 and the exact C.16 result |
| planned versus actual effort | WorkPlan, MethodDescription, resource envelope, performed U.Work or Gamma_work trace, effort window, and evidence remain separate | A.15.2, A.15.1, F.6, B.1.6, and resource patterns |
| temporal slices, phases, Work logs, or resource burn | composition and aggregation do not become acceleration or a transition law | B.1.4 and B.1.6 |
| actor, assignment, authority, or capability | actual System actor; separate local system-role kind, System classification, assignment occurrence, authority, capability, Work, and effect | A.2.1, A.15.1, F.6, and the direct relation patterns |
| resistance used beyond local diagnosis | qualitative judgement, measurement, model assumption, planning assumption, or unknown | exact evidence, C.16, model, planning, or assurance result |
| control or adaptive policy | horizon, feedback update, constraints, uncertainty, stop rule, and policy regime only when current | A.3.3, C.19, C.24, or evaluation pattern |
| policy transfer | behavior policy, proposed policy, overlap or transfer risk, uncertainty or bound, and unsafe exploration remain visible | evaluation or control pattern |
| sequential intervention regime | one impulse does not describe a sequence of decision rules | control, policy, or evaluation pattern |
| causal use | intervention, comparator or counterfactual, assignment or time zero, follow-up, outcome, estimand when current, assumptions, rival causes, identification and evidence design | exact C.28 causal-use result |
| dynamic benchmark | Dyn1 versus Dyn2, baseline, sampling, claim, validity, adaptation or effort windows, budget parity, comparator edition, and freshness | G.9 parity plan or report and C.16 |
| metric as target or public signal | measurement, incentive, changed Work, gaming or selection, causal effect, and proxy or utility distortion are different claims | C.16, E.13, C.28 when causal, assurance when current |
| multiple object traces | object bearers, events, interactions, queues, convergence or divergence, and aggregation | object-centric process evidence and aggregation patterns |
| cross-scale transfer | source bearer, target bearer, aggregation, bearer continuity, mix shift, and explicit transfer-use boundary | aggregation, evidence, and architecture patterns |
| changed scale variable | resource or capacity variable, scale window, probes, elasticity as rising, knee, flat, declining, or unknown, and parity; this differs from transferring a reading across bearers | C.18.1 and G.9 |
| time-scale choice changes use | spot, episode, sprint, life-cycle, learning-cycle, technoevolution, lifetime, or another exact temporal scale is named only when it changes bearer, evidence, use, or reopen | C.27.TA and the direct domain pattern |
| task-family adaptation | declared TaskFamily or TaskSignature, usable threshold, time and budget to threshold, prior exposure, transfer, retention, and downside | C.22.1 |
| search speed | narrowing speed differs from novelty, archive growth, illumination, frontier coverage, and search health | C.17, C.18, and C.19 |
| method composition or capability emergence | temporal adequacy does not define method composition, Work enactment, adaptive cycle, or capability emergence | B.1.5 and B.2.4 |
| design/operation comparison, evolution or language-state movement | temporal adequacy qualifies the time claims; it does not perform the comparison, coordinate adaptation, or define cue stabilization, reopening, operationalization or retirement | A.4 for System design/operation comparison; B.4, A.16 and B.4.1 for their separate adaptation and language-state questions |
| autonomy budget or freedom of action | tokens, guards, ledger, depletion, override, pause and resume remain their own claims | E.16 |
| viability regulation | cite the exact C.26.3 claim episteme or ClaimAddress; its bearer is one exact System, one A.22 Structure with all four discriminators, or another subject with its direct identity rule | C.26.3 |
| selected organization as viability bearer | exact constituents, selected obtaining relations, applied constraints, and one selection-use frame; a list of role kinds and assignments is insufficient | A.22 and C.26.3 |
| promise, gate, or high-stakes action | temporal action and window do not establish promise, acceptance, harm, safety, legal, ethical, financial, quality, service, or assurance claims | A.2.3, A.2.8, A.2.9, A.6.C, F.12, and direct assurance or domain patterns |
| evidence path or freshness | path, slice, provenance, assurance, decay, and epistemic debt remain separate from the temporal claim | A.10, G.6, B.3, and B.3.4 |
| dashboard, telemetry, pack, or refresh | health-slot meaning, series and slice construction, publication pins, shipping, and refresh orchestration remain separate | C.21, G.12, G.10, G.11, and G.6 |
| flow, gate, or crossing | selected flow, gate check, decision log, PathSlice, constraint and gate fit, time pins, and crossing remain separate | E.18, A.20, and A.21 |
| unstable publication unit | repair the mixed publication subject before judging any remaining temporal claim | E.17.AUD and E.17.ID.CR |
| residual probe, frame, order, export, or coarsening cue | ordinary temporal, measurement, Work, benchmark, proxy, scale, adaptation, viability, promise, and evidence questions must already be carried | C.26 |
| formal representation or transformation | represented mathematical structure, bounded transformation, and dynamics model remain distinct from temporal-claim adequacy | C.29, A.3.4, and A.3.3 |
| dynamic quality family | quality-bundle content and endpoint identity remain in the quality claim | C.25 |
| selector or publication availability | selector result, source-backed face, publication occurrence, form, carrier, and audience availability remain separate | G.5, E.17, and E.24.PUB |
| coasting, debt, or hysteresis beyond local use | what continues differs from what remains; reversibility, residue, repayment, braking, and recovery need their direct planning, quality, safety, wellbeing, or assurance claims | direct planning and domain patterns |
C.27:5.1 - Pattern-Use Notes
- A local resistance value of unknown is allowed. It blocks stronger use without the direct evidence or assumption boundary required for that use; it does not force a new theory.
- A historical trend does not supply a control horizon, update rule, constraints, or stability.
- Evidence from policy A does not carry policy B merely because both policies concern the same rate.
- Equal final scores do not erase unequal adaptation windows, effort, rework, validity, or recovery.
- Scalar throughput does not describe a whole multi-object work cycle when interactions and aggregation change the result.
- Metric improvement does not establish System improvement.
- A temporal metric does not become value merely by publication or target use.
- Measurement as action does not make QL relevant by itself.
- Adding fields does not turn a diagnostic or planning claim into a causal, benchmark, promise-like, gate, or assurance claim. That use changes only when the required direct result and supported-use boundary are present.
- The C.27 result cites the direct result only when its supported use relies on it.