C.29.1:7 - Conformance Checklist
These checks concern a claimed use of mathematical transfer. Recognition of a promising representation starts the work; the comparison and argument establish what conclusion it supports. Select the checks that apply to the claimed use.
| ID | Check and action |
|---|---|
| CC-C29.1-1 | The account SHALL state the receiving question and direction of use. If the same result is used as both a bound and a source action, explain the additional source witness for the latter. |
| CC-C29.1-2 | The transfer argument SHALL identify the source inputs, relevant operations and premises, including operation conditions that affect the conclusion. Recover a missing source rule before relying on its transfer. |
| CC-C29.1-3 | The account SHALL define the correspondence on the domain used by the conclusion and explain the meaning of its relevant values. A conclusion outside the represented domain needs a further argument. |
| CC-C29.1-4 | An exact operation-transfer claim SHALL be supported by the comparison in C.29.1:4.3 over its stated domain. Include availability or return conditions when the receiving use depends on them. |
| CC-C29.1-5 | An answer defined through a merged representation SHALL have the representative-independence argument in C.29.1:4.4, or be qualified as a bound or set of possible answers. A conflicting permitted pair requires repair of that proposed answer. |
| CC-C29.1-6 | A bound or approximation claim SHALL explain why it covers the allowed cases, the direction of its inequality and the subsequent error propagation needed by the receiving use. |
| CC-C29.1-7 | A returned receiving solution claimed to be feasible in the source SHALL identify an allowed source counterpart with the stated properties. A relaxation optimum alone supplies no such counterpart. |
| CC-C29.1-8 | The returned conclusion SHALL retain its answer-changing assumptions and distinguish the result obtained from the further work still needed. A physical application includes the physical premises; a changed premise reopens the dependent comparison. |
A complete argument about a mathematical model establishes its stated conditional consequence. Confidence that an observed system satisfies the premises, or that an implementation performs the operation, comes from the corresponding subject work.