CHK.Preface:2 - Subjects, descriptions and useful characteristics

A team can describe a seminar set as twenty readable cards with wording v2, assembled for delivery. The actual cards have characteristics. The description says something about those characteristics. The team also assumes that a set with those characteristics will serve its exercise. Comparing cards with the description, testing that usefulness assumption, and deciding what to change are different activities.

A mismatch can reveal a defect in the cards, a mistaken description or an unsuitable intended use. It supplies information for that decision; it does not impose a duty to change the cards. Actual legislative requirements, when applicable, retain their specific source and applicability. They are not the general meaning of a checklist criterion.

A criterion here is the condition or distinction used to interpret an answer. “All twenty described cards are present” and “The wording matches v2” are examples. Their grounds and useful coverage remain open to examination. Some questions use direct observation; others consume an already competent result or a reasoned judgement. Neither a blank field nor a plausible answer supplies missing evidence.

This follows the distinction between a subject, an episteme about it and a selected use of that episteme in FPF E.10.D2. A template describes questions for reuse; a filled record describes answers from a particular use. People and technical systems can perform work. For descriptions, files and card sets, identify the actual relation: for example, a file describes the cards, the cards enter an exercise, and an observation supplies grounds for an answer.