C.3.4:11 - Authoring and Review Guidance

An adaptation card may show its declaration designator, base kind, effective scheme, pinned base-signature and declaration editions, adaptation type, intended use, candidate constraints, bindings, separately routed Scope, applicability, examples, known bridge or correspondence declarations, and a stable-distinction review note when current. A correspondence card shows its source declaration as EntityOfConcern and names target, direction, rule, definedness, loss, and effective scheme. A card represents the declaration; it is not the declaration or another kind.

Rules of thumb:

• Keep candidate conditions small and governed.
• Check ValueKind and applicability before the three-valued judgment.
• Put claim-scope conditions in Scope, not kind identity.
• Treat locality as a comparison cue. Require a bridge only for distinct kinds with an obtaining correspondence.
• If several teams reuse one stable conceptual constraint, review whether another kind is warranted; reuse alone establishes none.

Reviewer questions:

1. Are the exact base kind and declaration editions recoverable?
2. Is the type—constraint, vocabulary, or composite—correct?
3. Are candidate conditions, applicability, and ClaimScope separated?
4. Does evaluation distinguish not-applicable, true, false, unknown, and guard refusal?
5. On locality change, was kind identity compared before any bridge was claimed?
6. For distinct-kind use, do the bridge predicate, receiving declaration, fresh judgment, any adaptation correspondence, and only justified R consequence remain separate?
7. Does a stable conceptual distinction warrant another kind, or is the declaration sufficient?