C.3.2:8 - Subkind Comparison and Change

Whenever SubkindOfObtains(k1,k2) holds under C.3.1, its practical consequence is checked only where both candidate requests are admissible under the aligned declarations:

For the same candidate and slice, an admissible true judgment for k1 must not coexist with an admissible false judgment for k2 within the relation’s declared applicability.

C.3.1 decides whether exact criterion entailment or exhaustive evaluation over a deliberately closed finite domain makes the relation obtain. Non-exhaustive classifications support its assertion or expose a counterexample; they do not establish an open-domain relation. A not-applicable request is outside the comparison. Cross-local use first compares kind identities: reuse the same kind directly when its membership distinction continues; only distinct kinds with an obtaining correspondence use C.3.3. A bridge never transfers source classification truth.

Keep these changes distinct:

Change	Direct consequence	What does not follow automatically
practice, source, team, or locality changes	compare the exact kind definitions and declaration meanings	another kind or `KindBridge`
two distinct kinds and a directional correspondence are current	test C.3.3 obtaining and evaluate the receiving candidate afresh	transferred source truth
criterion, candidate domain, applicability, `EntityOfConcern`, or scheme changes	another declaration episteme; `KindSignature` qualification and any edition relation are checked separately as in section 5; C.3.1 decides kind continuity	another kind merely by edition
candidate fails ValueKind or slice applicability	`not-applicable`; no judgment	`unknown` or `false`
candidate state changes	reevaluate in the relevant slice when admissible	a new signature or kind
support or dependency becomes unavailable	`unknown` for an admissible request	`not-applicable` or known `false`
publication form changes	another form or carrier may express the same episteme	another signature, kind, or classification