C.3.1:5 - Solution

1. Recover each kind before comparing it. For each kind, state the candidate domain, membership condition, intended member/non-member contrast, and continuity rule. Use practice/source provenance to locate the declaration, not to decide identity.
2. Check admissibility first. Compare only candidates admissible under both aligned declarations and the stated applicability. not-applicable forms no C.3.2 judgment.
3. Select one obtaining branch. Use exact criterion entailment when the membership rules can be compared directly. Use exhaustive evaluation only for a deliberately closed finite domain. State which branch and where it applies.
4. Keep observations in their proper role. A non-exhaustive sample, test run, or extension can support the subkind assertion and expose a counterexample. It cannot close an open-domain obtaining claim.
5. Keep a preorder over obtaining facts. Reflexivity and transitivity apply. Mutual facts between distinct kinds record classification equivalence for that alignment; they do not imply kind identity. Use the equivalence groups only when a receiver needs a partial order.
6. Separate relation, predicate, and assertion. Use the readable relation sentence first. Add R_sub, a C.2.1 assertion, evidence, or publication only when a named receiver consumes that object.
7. Diagnose counterexamples at the rule. Repair a false relation proposal, incompatible declaration alignment, or missing distinct-kind bridge. Do not edit an extension row to make the order appear true.
8. Decide kind continuity independently. Apply the before/after test in section 6 whenever criterion, candidate domain, assumptions, dependencies, effective scheme, or locality changes. Another KindSignature edition neither proves nor denies kind continuity.
9. Keep scope and Work outside the kind. A kind carries no claim scope. An exact W : U.Work remains a dated work occurrence under its direct pattern; keep it distinct from a plan, log, label, classification record, or episteme about W.