C.32:5 - Archetypal Grounding

Tell. The regulated product-family first-minute slice in the Problem frame shows the minimum complete move: one grounded question, a small set of selected-structure contribution rows, three genuinely different candidate configurations, explicit gains and losses, and no premature decision. Show. The cases below vary the described holon and the selected structures while keeping that move recognizable. Show again. The didactic mini-slices in Solution 4 show what to repair when a required function has no feasible bearer. These three views are one grounding set, not three additional procedures.

Grounded working case	Synthesis question	C.32 candidate work	Stop condition
Regulated product family with growing field exceptions	How should functions, module interfaces, placement, and evidence scope be configured so substitutability and certification burden stay acceptable?	Prepare candidates that narrow interface grammar, split the family by evidence scope, change placement responsibility, or keep a bounded exception with source return.	Stop at palette unless G.5 selected-set result declaration, publication availability, assurance, or architecture decision is current.
Built-asset digital-twin handover where a method-defined digital-twin view hides source loss	Which selected structures do the digital-twin dimensions actually describe, and which source-return obligations must survive maintenance use?	Prepare candidates that split information view, add source-return scope, retarget maintenance responsibility, or change module and placement structure.	Stop before built-asset architecture-description, MVPK publication-face, or A.10 evidence-relation claims unless `C.30.AD.BA`, `E.17`, `E.24.PUB`, or evidence patterns are current.
Emergency-department triage arrangement whose local desk is fast but hospital-wide escalation is brittle	How should admitted Systems, local system-role kinds or classifications, future assignment conditions, procedure and Method structure, control, direct responsibility, evidence, and any actual Work and separately needed F.6 attribution be configured so speed does not erase escalation adequacy?	Prepare candidates that retarget responsibility only through an admitted direct predicate, state a possible mediator assignment as plan or candidate content rather than an occurrence, split triage scope by patient class, or adjust evidence capture; use the exact missing governor when needed.	Stop before ethical mediation, evidence, staffing decision, assignment occurrence, or performed Work unless those claims are current.
AI-agent review setup where local autonomy conflicts with policy scope	How should control, module-interface, evidence-refresh, and work-method structures be configured so autonomy and policy conformance stay jointly acceptable?	Prepare candidates that add supervisor relation, narrow model interface behavior, change evidence refresh cadence, or alter work-method responsibility.	Stop before safety, release, gate, or causal claims unless their subject patterns are current.
Method family whose reusable template speeds authoring and slows review	How should Method structure, authored-section structure, review evidence, admitted Systems, possible future assignment conditions, and direct review-responsibility relations be configured so repeatability does not create hidden review residue?	Prepare candidates that split Method variants, add review evidence scope, change a planned assignment condition, retarget responsibility through its direct predicate or record the exact missing governor, or accept bounded local Method residue.	Stop before Method governance, curriculum decision, assignment occurrence, performed Work, description use, or publication-face use unless the pattern for the next question is current.