C.31.ASAP:4.3 - Architecture scale-preference rule

When architecture alternatives satisfy the same safety boundary, law-domain boundary, and assurance boundary, prefer the alternative whose reusable functional-structure, flow-structure, control-structure, module-interface, work-template, and evidence-package structure and learning-transfer slopes remain stable or improve over the declared scale window, unless an ArchitectureScaleAuditRecord@Project records a bounded exception.

C.31.ASAP defines the scale-preference claim and its boundary. Use G.9 for a parity claim and A.21 for a gate claim; the candidate, comparison, set-declaration, and choice uses are distinguished below.

A scale-preference claim may inform C.32 candidate generation or supply one input to an A.19.CPM comparison by naming the scale variable, scale window, expected stable or improving structure, exception-growth risk, and source-return condition for candidate alternatives. Use C.32 to construct the candidate architecture palette, A.19.CPM to compare alternatives, G.5 to declare a selected-set result, C.11 to make a final local choice, and C.32.PAD to record a project architecture decision. When audience availability is current, use E.17 for a source-backed publication face and return to source and E.24.PUB for the publication occurrence, form, carrier, audience, bounded use, and availability. Apply the relevant evidence, assurance, gate, or release definition and test only when that claim is current.

When the same scale-sensitive pressure must also become a project criterion, C.32.ACS creates a separate row for the exact characteristic or Q-Bundle slot, bearer, scale form, and use class. That row may supply declared input to an ASAP preference. Use C.31.ASAP to state which alternative is preferable under the scale window; use C.32.ACS to admit and classify the criterion row as an optimization indicator, guardrail, or context-only row. Keep the preference record and criterion row separately referenced.