C.34:5 - Archetypal Grounding

Tell: C.34 is the pattern for a declared architecture preservation claim. It is used when a practitioner says that one description, view, model, generated output, or realized observation is same enough as another for a specific architecture use. The pattern does not ask for the strongest possible proof. It asks for the weakest adequate mapping mode, preserved structure, lost structure, directionality, scope, admissible use, and the next claim or use plus the concrete rule it needs.

Show - view and description case. Two architecture diagrams are edge-isomorphic. In one diagram an edge means data dependency; in the other it means control authority. C.34 records mapping mode nearSameness, preserved node partition, lost relation-type semantics, and non-admissible use “control separation decision.” The repair is to recover relation semantics through C.30.ASV, C.30.TFS-REL, or C.30.LCA before using the mapping for architecture work.

Show - source model and generated graph case. A code-agent dependency graph matches module names in the model used as the source, but marks several edges inferred and several regions unexplored. C.34 records relation observation class, directionality, preserved dependency hints, lost dynamic wiring, and non-admissible use “safe-change authority.” The graph may help inspect candidate dependencies, but it cannot prove release readiness.

Show - candidate and realized structure case. A candidate architecture promises that a service split preserves interface substitutability, but the realized structure adds shared storage and a hidden orchestration dependency. C.34 records preserved interface signatures, lost runtime independence, changed coupling, and a preservation-loss condition that requires A.6.M, C.31, C.30, and C.32.PAD checks before the decision is reused.

Show - neural substitution case. A candidate replaces an attention block with an SSM block. C.34 asks which selected structures are preserved: sequence dataflow, routing interface, memory access, latency envelope, training resource boundary, or inference resource boundary. Shape sameness or benchmark improvement does not by itself preserve the architecture relation needed by the next claim.

Show - selected source structure and narrative structure case. An architecture narrative orders a candidate set as “pressure, alternative, trade-off, decision, residual.” C.34 records mapping mode correspondence, preserved structure candidate alternative and selected trade-off relation, lost structure full Pareto-front detail and rejected-candidate evals, directionality selected source structure to narrative only, and admissible use team orientation and decision memory. The narrative order is not exact equivalence and does not license implementation, evidence, or assurance use without the rule that defines or tests that downstream claim.