C.34:10 - Rationale

Architecture preservation is use-relative. The same two structures can be equivalent for one use, merely corresponding for another, and unusable for a third. For this architecture-specific claim, start from source and target selected structures, then choose the weakest mapping mode that licenses the next architecture use.

This keeps C.34 separate from its neighbors. C.29 defines mathematical-lens-use accounts. C.30.AD and C.30.ASV govern architecture-description and structural-view adequacy, with records for uses that need them. F.9 defines cross-context Bridges. F.15 supplies static and regression conformance tests over a finite slice of exact governed objects and versions for one receiving use. C.32 describes candidate synthesis. C.34 contributes the preservation claim those uses may need, but it does not replace them.

The source families explain the safeguards. Structural-equivalence research shows that symmetry can compact search only under explicit conditions. Applied category theory shows why preservation maps are powerful but still formal lenses until tied to the architecture use. MBSE view practice makes projection and omitted structure ordinary. Sapunov and ToCS, plus GonzoML, show why observed relation maps and neural substitution labels need typed relation, confidence, and source-label recovery before architecture use.