CHK.4:5 - Archetypal Grounding
Set S has twenty readable cards matching wording v2 and is assembled for delivery. Count/readability was observed at 10:00, wording at 10:05 and assembly at 10:10. The answers were entered at 10:12.
At 10:15, the facilitator changes the comparison description to v3, replacing one phrase.
| Current information | Answer to “Does S match v3?” | Useful continuation |
|---|---|---|
| S is known to be unchanged since its comparison with v2; the changed phrase differs. | No. The retained content observation and the v3 description already establish a mismatch. | Decide whether to change the cards, description or intended exercise. A new inspection is unnecessary to establish this negative answer. |
| S may have been replaced; current wording is not known. | Unknown. The old observation no longer settles current content. | Inspect the affected content or obtain another adequate current result. |
| The affected card has been replaced and compared with v3; sufficient grounds remain for the other cards. | Yes, for the wording question on those combined grounds. | Examine whether handling also affected count, readability or assembly. |
In this constructed case, the facilitator decides to keep v3 and replace the affected card. Replacement is the selected work. A subsequent comparison establishes the new answer. If opening the set and changing a card could leave it incomplete, recounting is useful. If the remaining cards were protected and their wording unchanged, repeating every wording comparison adds no corresponding gain.
The v2 answer remains a historical answer to its actual question. Recording the v3 answer later does not alter when the earlier observation occurred, and neither observation alone establishes when a condition first became true.
A spill can make already checked cards unreadable while their wording and the completed printing work remain unchanged. Observed damage supports a current negative answer to readability; it does not erase the earlier work. In another branch, the workshop is cancelled while every physical-set answer remains true. The decision about further preparation then uses the changed occasion and value of the work, rather than trying to turn the physical answers negative.
For an importer, the agent’s message “error handling implemented” concerns its account of work. To answer whether malformed input leaves the previous catalogue intact, inspect the relevant before/after state using a suitable check. A failed observation tool leaves that question unresolved even if the implementation might in fact be correct. Conversely, a demonstrated state difference can already establish No; another run is not needed just to avoid recording a negative answer.