DOCA.5:4.5 - Return the strongest supported reachability claim
Write the result at the smallest affected scope.
| What the qualification establishes | Useful return |
|---|---|
| Necessary transitions and their joint limits are supported for this subject, configuration, use, and horizon | State bounded reachability, the supporting conditions, residual uncertainty, and the event that would reopen it. |
| A material premise is still missing but the candidate is specified well enough to qualify | Retain a conditional opportunity; name the exact claim withheld, supplying practice, and result that could support or defeat it. |
| A qualified constraint defeats the proposed transition or combination | Reject that route for the stated use, or construct a revised candidate; retain independently supported alternatives. |
| The starting condition, finite change, or jointly necessary conditions are too unclear to test | Return an unresolved candidate and the missing description or evidence, without asserting reachability or impossibility. |
“Conditional” is useful only when the condition changes the result. State what a positive and a negative answer would do. Do not retain a known-infeasible direction as merely awaiting more evidence, or call an unanswered question a negative result.
An ordinary return can be two sentences:
Each support direction can operate alone during the eight-week inquiry, but both require the same engineer for two hours each week and only two hours are available. The joint direction is ruled out under the no-overtime protection; retain the separate candidates, and qualify a shared-support configuration only if its actual combined demand could change that result.
This return need not become a large dependency register. Expand it when several recipients, delayed reuse, disagreement, or consequence makes the basis hard to recover.
Recognition and assurance. A reader can recognize a usable account from the named transition, joint limits, qualified or missing premises, and bounded return. Trust in the reachability claim requires the relevant domain evidence and uncertainty assessment; high-consequence use retains its additional safety, authority, and assurance requirements. A clear account makes those requirements visible without satisfying them by description.