C.38:7 - Conformance and practical checks

A use conforms only when the checks needed by its claimed comparison pass:

1. One governed result, receiver, use, situation or configuration, horizon, acceptance basis, deciding System, and authority boundary are explicit.
2. At least two materially different complete-enough ways seek that same result. Duplicate labels merge and material differences under one label split.
3. Every decision-bearing premise is visibly supported now, proposed, or unknown; proposed or unknown premises establish no actual capability, authority, Work, provision, delivery, acceptance, availability, or use.
4. The same decision-changing parity questions are applied to every way; an omitted group is justified by irrelevance to this choice.
5. A decision-reversing unknown remains a gap or probe. Protected conditions are not hidden inside one unexplained scalar.
6. A.19.CPM or A.19.SelectorMechanism is used only when its evidence-gating, incomparability, abstention, or set-return contribution is actually needed.
7. Only complete-enough whole ways enter the finite OptionSet; C.11 alone makes the local choice and emits the ChoiceResult.
8. The rule for retaining the comparison prevents a duplicate episteme when an owning domain result already carries the complete comparison.
9. A retained way names its first unsupported realization branch, but no realization or later Work is claimed by the comparison.
10. The reopen condition names a changed premise or result that can alter the comparison or choice.

Recognition check. Give a cold reader a build/buy/provider/AI list. The reader should be able to name one common result and expose at least one hidden difference or duplicate without inventing an arrangement taxonomy.

Assurance check. For a consequential use, inspect each actual premise under its direct evidence and authority patterns, challenge one omitted burden that could reverse the choice, and verify that the selected domain assurance and acceptance Methods remain outside C.38.