E.10.ARCH:10 - Conformance Checklist
Selecting a recovery pattern selects guidance. Kind admission, the truth of an exact claim, performed Work, and attribution are established under their direct rules. The checks below apply that shared condition to particular recovery families.
Relation-use recovery rule. When wording hides a positive or explicitly restricted direct-relation claim, first name the direct predicate, its actual participants and the claim’s polarity under the rule that defines it. Establish obtaining separately when the claim affirms that the relation obtains. Individuate one U.Relation occurrence only when a named receiving use needs to distinguish it. Add a reusable RelationSignature and A.6.5 SlotSpec values only when reusable typed declaration is current. Add participant designations only inside a current assertion or relation-occurrence-description episteme; the designations do not replace the actual participants. A filled project row that states the claim is a claim-bearing episteme. A field, edge, diagram element, or table cell remains a publication form or C.29 representation element unless a defining rule establishes another object and an explicit correspondence. Use an E.24 onticSlotRelation only after durable ontic settlement makes that direct relation current. A mathematical tuple or argument position stays representation-side until an explicit correspondence relates it to a declared SlotSpec. Using E.10.ARCH creates none of those objects; the author returns to the rules that define, constrain, or test them, with the PatternIDs serving only as locators.
| Check | Observable conformance condition |
|---|---|
CC-E10ARCH-1 | E.10 remains the compact trigger-and-applicability description; the rule content located at E.10.ARCH states the shared algorithm and applicability-row architecture. |
CC-E10ARCH-2 | Each applicability row is an authoring/publication construct whose minimum content is recurring wording, exact recovered object, exact claim or use, exact subject assertion, subjectPatternLocator, repaired wording, and surviving reader use. Optional declaration, designation, reference, publication, and representation fields appear only when current. A negative boundary appears only when independent local evidence makes the exact rival reading plausible to the intended reader and deleting it changes use. Ordinary engineers are not required to fill the row. |
CC-E10ARCH-3 | Direct known cases bypass restoration. The installed-bearing report, C.29 graph edge, reusable ParticipantSlot, and source-word input cases preserve direct relation, assertion, declaration, actual participant, representation, method/work/transformation/result, and subject-pattern boundaries. |
CC-E10ARCH-4 | A new realization pattern is added only when no existing defining or constraining rule and subject-pattern guidance supply the stable recovery shape without duplicating repair-only doctrine. |
CC-E10ARCH-5 | Each subject description keeps its primary EntityOfConcern and first useful move central and retains only thin first-use cues to precision restoration when wording is hidden. A guard about description or publication use appears only under the F.19 plausible-intended-reader test and stays with the exact rule whose use it changes; it does not become the subject Solution. |
CC-E10ARCH-6 | reading, read, and quality-read wording remains trigger wording and does not mint ReadingPrecisionRestoration. |
CC-E10ARCH-6a | EntityOfConcern-like hidden fields follow the selected rule-content split: E.10 recognizes the wording-use row; the defining ClaimGraph located at C.2.1 states episteme identity and the identified EntityOfConcern participant; A.6.5 rule content defines EntityOfConcernSlot as a declaration-local SlotKind within one complete SlotSpec of a reusable constitution RelationSignature; direct-reference ClaimGraph sources define or constrain entityOfConcernRef, EntityOfConcernRef, and related reference uses; C.2.P supplies the recovery rule and practical guidance for episteme, publication, source-wording, and source-relation wording; F.18 settles durable heads and source-string decisions; E.17.AUD.OOTD rule content states publication-unit primary entity of concern; and every remaining claim or admissible-use boundary is a separate exact subject assertion. The declaration, designation, and identified participant keep their distinct identities. |
CC-E10ARCH-6b | State-family wording follows one path: E.10 recognizes it; E.10.MOVE first resolves ambiguous readiness-like wording; A.19.SPR repairs only a remaining hidden object or state frame; and the direct pattern states the recovered relation, assertion, result, decision, or field. A predicate appears only when that direct pattern defines or needs one. |
CC-E10ARCH-6c | Stratification and source-label wording follows the selected distribution: E.10 recognizes the wording-use row, C.30.STRAT supplies the recovery rule and practical guidance for recurring source-label repair, and exact subject assertions state already-recovered control-layer, module-interface, architecture-to-TransformationFlowStructure, scale or coarse-graining, publication relation set, gate, work, decision, or ordinary non-use cases directly. |
CC-E10ARCH-6d | For admissibility-like, legal, lawful, validity, pass-looking, fail-looking, readiness, conformance, and authority wording, use the defining rule for the particular governed claim. E.10.MOVE resolves ambiguous readiness-like wording; A.19.SPR is used only for a remaining hidden object or state frame; otherwise use the claim’s direct rule. |
CC-E10ARCH-6e | Method-like wording may recover one U.Method or one or more exact method-side relations. Only when a named use depends on their organization should the practitioner use A.22’s criterion to select a structure that may be locally designated MethodRelationStructure; a U.MethodDescription separately describes one admitted Method. Mechanism, plan, dated Work, transformation, production, inception, completion, result, delivery or acceptance, architecture relation, architecture description, and representation remain separate objects or relations under their defining or testing rules. One source label may expose several such values. A value typed as both U.Method and U.Mechanism must satisfy both admission rules. A proposed ontology based on a declaration-local SlotSpec or participant label needs its own admission basis. |
CC-E10ARCH-6f | Declarative representation overread follows C.2.P.DR unless a direct graph, evidence, publication, method, work, gate, authority, or pattern-relation pattern already defines or constrains the recovered claim by value. Graph paths remain legitimate graph relations when that is the current claim; evidence-path wording is legitimate only after recovery as an evidence or provenance relation. They become repair triggers when read as routes, calls, dispatches, permissions, releases, work sequences, or evidence results by metaphor. |
CC-E10ARCH-6g | Terminology-source audit is bounded: recover source-ontology labels only when they affect the governed object, direct relation kind, participant meaning, actual participant kind, declaration-local SlotSpec, assertion-side participant designation, exact use, admissible use, or selection of the claim’s defining or testing rule; otherwise stable ordinary prose stays ordinary. Relation-shaped material follows the relation-use recovery rule, and interface is used only under a boundary, module-interface, signature, port, publication, or source-label disposition named by value. |
CC-E10ARCH-6h | For bare claim-bearing role, use E.10 to recognize the trigger and E.10.ROLE to recover the ordinary sentence and one exact object or relation. Use the defining rule located by the selected pattern. Use A.6.RSIR only while a direct-relation, declaration, interface, operation, representation, or other relation-signature-interface-assignment-slot branch remains hidden. |
CC-E10ARCH-6i | Work and Method boundary wording uses C.2.P first for an epistemic source side, bypasses to a clear defining or testing rule, and otherwise uses A.6.P.WMR for exactly one of its four result families. Use F.18 to name performed Work only after occurrence grounding. Classification, a generic result label, or a designation that merely type-checks against a declaration does not close the case. |
CC-E10ARCH-7 | function, functional, functionality, and effect wording keeps A.6.F as first unpacker when the governed FPF object, direct relation, claim-bearing episteme, view, or defining or testing rule is hidden; it does not default to architecture. |
CC-E10ARCH-8 | semanticArea, ontologicalNeighborhood, and pattern nest follow E.8 placement discipline: semanticArea is the Part-F semantic unit, ontologicalNeighborhood is its applicability neighborhood, and pattern nest is placement. |
CC-E10ARCH-9 | Repair preserves one useful admissible reader use and states it positively. Add a negative boundary only when the F.19 plausible-intended-reader test warrants it. Type-correct but inert wording is not recovered by value. |
CC-E10ARCH-10 | Validation covers duplicate recognition tables, broad placeholder heads, declaration/participant collapse, representation-as-obtaining, one-description/many-object collapse, optional apparatus without a receiver, practitioner-row bureaucracy, shadow restoration apparatus, and entry or index drift. |
CC-E10ARCH-11 | A DPF-local entry begins only from a demonstrated recurring wording problem and identifies the DPF claim, DPF edition, defining or constraining rule, and the PatternID that locates that rule. The entry stays beside the claim whose wording it restores; F.19 supplies the final rewrite. A separate profile is a claim-bearing episteme with a named receiving use and edition, and exists only when several entries are maintained together; any table that publishes it remains a publication form. No domain trigger is copied into the FPF-wide table, and wording repair does not establish or revise domain doctrine. |