C.2:7 - Conformance Checklist

1. C2-1 (Episteme constitution and neighbors). Every U.Episteme MUST satisfy C.2.1 constitution through exact claim content, one exact EntityOfConcern, and one effective U.ReferenceScheme. Empirical grounding and edition are stated through their separate C.2.1 relations. Viewpoint selection and U.View conformance use E.17.0; representation uses C.29/A.6.3.RT; publication occurrence, form, and carrier use E.17/E.24.PUB. None is treated as an episteme slot or identity component merely because a record or notation places it beside the constitution values.
2. C2‑2 (Coordinates). Each episteme SHALL declare [F,G,R] for its exact claim and use with a brief rationale; where R has no justified numerical model, retain its unquantified support and bounded conclusion. Formal validity needs no empirical score; F is U.Formality ∈ {F0…F9} per C.2.3, exactly one episteme‑level F computed as the min over essential parts. CL is declared for pairs only. A named notation scheme MAY use sub‑anchors (e.g., F4[OCL], F7[HOL]), which MUST preserve the global order and map to their parent anchor from C.2.3.
3. C2‑3 (Composition). Authors SHALL identify support roles and dependencies under B.1.3/C.2.2 before combining inputs. Any numerical R or loss MUST have justified meanings, scales, assumptions, and a receiving model under B.3; no universal min/max or F-to-R conversion applies. Otherwise return separate support and a bounded synthesis. F uses the minimum over essential formal constituents; G uses applicable path intersections and supported SpanUnion under A.2.6. Every reuse MUST name the actual direct relation and retain its warranted limitation; do not hide contrary evidence or unsupported scope.
4. C2‑4 (NotationBridge). Multi‑notation representation components SHOULD register NotationBridge edges with CL and loss note; any cross‑notation reasoning MUST cite the bridge’s CL.
5. C2‑5 (No action). Epistemes MUST NOT be assigned actions; work is executed by systems in role.