E.11.PUA:4.4.2 - Joint-success candidate and its premises
A candidate proposes using A.9 to compute the probability that both named components succeed, with marginals 0.9 and 0.8. The expected product 0.72 is supported by A.9’s joint-success case only when the independence premise and the model’s applicability to these events hold.
| Case basis | Claim about this candidate |
|---|---|
| Independence and applicable marginals are established for the named events and window. | The product-law basis supports the expectation. Applying the law is still the subject operation; the candidate claim is not its delivered result. |
| Dependence is established, for example P(B given A)=0.7 rather than P(B)=0.8. | That fact defeats this independence-based product expectation. Recover the applicable joint model; do not keep 0.72 by citing the same pattern. |
| The dependence information is missing. | This stated basis remains unresolved. Name the missing premise instead of asserting either independence or its negation. |
PUR can use those claims in its existing fit/applicability judgement without requiring a fused basis relation. Spelling an A.9 reference differently while resolving the same source does not change the support’s referent. Changing the candidate’s expected event from “both” to “at least one” changes its claim content; the product expectation cannot be retained as though only the reference display changed. Under the independent alternative-success model in A.9, the corresponding value would be 0.98, requiring that different candidate content and result basis. Neither basis claim authorizes Work, delivers the result, or supplies a result-closure finding.