C.34:4 - Solution

Create one StructuralPreservationAdequacyNote@Context before relying on the same-enough claim.

Read the note as a disciplined “same enough” card. It does not ask for perfect identity unless the use requires it; it asks what must survive for the next architecture action and what loss remains visible.

Work in this order:

1. Name the selected source structures and selected target structures. Do not start from labels, diagrams, or tool objects alone.
2. Name the intended architecture use: view correspondence, candidate comparison, structure recovery, generated-output admission, realization check, eval support, decision repair, or another receiving claim.
3. Choose the weakest mapping mode that is adequate for the use. Use exactEquivalence only when empty loss is justified.
4. State preserved relations or constraints in domain and FPF terms. Include relation-type semantics when edge or link meaning changes the use.
5. State lost structure, hidden structure, directionality, and scope or scale window.
6. Cite C.29 only when a mathematical object, graph match, functor, invariant, entropy, or formal mapping is being used as a lens.
7. Cite C.30.ASV, C.30.AD, or their correspondence records when the relation is view or architecture-description correspondence.
8. Cite A.6.3.NAR when the target episteme or representation is a narrative rendering whose ordering rationale, preserved selected source structure, source-return condition, and any unresolved stronger assertion with the pattern that defines it must stay inspectable.
9. Cite F.9 when the claim crosses bounded contexts or source traditions; cite F.15 for later conformance strengthening.
10. Stop when admissible use, non-admissible use, preservation-loss return condition, the next claim or use, and its required mapping, bridge, conformance, or other rule are named.

CGUS-aware neighbor use: when a route-shaped publication card, narrative sequence, generated route card, framework publication, or demonstrative slice is claimed to preserve a constraint-governed unfolding structure, use C.34 only to check the sameness relation. The result names selected source and target structures, mapping mode, preserved constraints, preserved ordering or branching relations, lost alternatives, directionality, and admissible use. A.22.CGUS, E.18.3, C.32.P2S, or another direct structure pattern continues to define or constrain the selected unfolding U.Structure; cite an exact ClaimGraph only if that structure claim must travel independently. A demonstrative slice is a U.Episteme that presents one traversal of a qualified CGUS. Its correspondence to that structure may be checked here; DemonstrativeUnfoldingSlice@Context is a readable lineage cue, not an exact slice identity. When that presentation is a narrative, A.6.3.NAR defines its source selection, ordering and connective account, preservation/loss, use, and return, not the selected structure. The C.34 result says only whether the target is same enough for the declared architecture use.