C.3.2:6 - Admissibility and One Candidate Judgment

For exposition, this pattern uses:

A(candidate, kind, signatureEdition, slice) ∈ {admissible, not-applicable}

and, only when A = admissible:

J(candidate, kind, signatureEdition, slice) ∈ {true, false, unknown}

These are local result notations, not newly admitted kinds, A.14 membership occurrences, direct classification relations, or evidence relations. For a fixed candidate, kind, signature edition, and slice, unchanged governed conditions and the same available support and declared dependencies yield the same result; the slice resolves concrete versions and an explicit temporal selector rather than implicit latest or current.

1. Recover the candidate first. An entity is already individuated under its direct pattern. A non-entity value keeps the identity, unit, scale, and interpretation supplied by its governor.
2. Pin the inputs. Name candidate, kind, exact signature edition, and exact slice; avoid implicit latest or current.
3. Check admissibility. If the candidate does not satisfy the declared candidate ValueKind or interpretation, or the slice is outside declared applicability, return not-applicable and stop. Do not form J.
4. Evaluate the governed condition. For an admissible candidate, a satisfied criterion gives true; a known failed criterion gives false.
5. Keep non-settlement visible. Missing support or an unavailable declared dependency gives unknown, not false.
6. Distinguish condition from evidentiary use. A measurement result, source episteme, certification, registration, publication occurrence, legal-status relation, or record may itself be a criterion condition only when the signature says so and that condition obtains under its direct pattern. Its mere use as evidence for some other condition creates neither that condition nor membership.
7. Separate guard disposition. A guard checks admissibility, scope coverage, and any judgment as separate predicates. It may decline use on not-applicable or unknown without converting either to false.

When a separate claim-bearing classification assertion is current, it is a C.2.1 episteme. Its content designates the candidate, kind, signature edition, slice, admissibility, any judgment, and relied-on support. Its exact EntityOfConcern is the governed entity about which classification matters; a value classification may stay in another claim’s content rather than fabricating a value-shaped entity. The assertion creates neither candidate nor kind.

A domain that genuinely needs a durable classification-relation occurrence must supply a separate direct pattern with exact participants, obtaining condition, identity, and relation to these results. C.3.2 does not mint that occurrence.