E.11.PUR:5 - Archetypal Grounding

E.11.PUR:5.1 - Applicable but not recommended

A team considering a high-cost pump test has candidate uses of C.28 causal triage and A.21 gate discipline. Both may be applicable. The immediate uncertainty is whether a causal model output may support intervention, so C.28 offers the more useful first result. That uncertainty and the recommendation are epistemic; neither asserts an actual C.22.PFR Problem.

Recommend C.28 without claiming that the test is authorized. The later gate use remains a separate candidate whose applicability can be reconsidered after the causal-use result exists.

Because this local recommendation is reversible and no named later use relies on it, the team states the applicability result and one compact rationale over all five aspects in the working conversation; it materializes no recommendation episteme or support profile. If a later gate review needs to replay each aspect independently, that review may create current fit findings and a current applicability finding from the then-current basis. It does not backdate those addressable findings; if the original readable rationale was retained, it remains the earlier recommendation’s historical basis.

E.11.PUR:5.1.1 - An earlier result still answers the concern

The same team already has a C.28 causal-use result for the same pump model, intervention question, declared use, sources, assumptions, and qualification window. The team uses C.28 to compare that result episteme and edition with the present concern. Every comparison value still matches, so the team cites the result and stops instead of performing the C.28 use again.

If the team uses the result as a premise in a project discussion and the source-to-use account is still implicit, it uses A.10 to make the source → result → claim connection explicit for that bounded use. If the later gate Work relies on that result, its A.10 evidence-provenance path names the result and bounded use. If new operating conditions change the causal-use assumptions or qualification window, the team reopens that affected C.28 question rather than treating the old result as current or restarting every coordinated pattern use.

E.11.PUR:5.1.2 - No new use is worth recommending

A team considers an optional check that fits its concern and conditions. The most it could save is ten minutes; performing it takes an hour. The present work already meets the needed result, and no obligation requires this check. The team establishes applicability, compares the hour with the possible saving, and continues without selecting a new use. It needs neither a recommendation episteme with a fictitious candidate nor a refusal document. If asked why, it states the cost comparison in the conversation.

If new information makes that check capable of preventing a consequential loss, the team reopens this comparison. If the check becomes obligatory, the earlier optional-advice conclusion does not discharge the obligation. A less burdensome check with a worthwhile expected result can support the ordinary positive recommendation instead.

E.11.PUR:5.2 - Unordered complementary uses

A clinical team needs both a terminology repair and an evidence-basis review before revising a protocol. Neither result is a prerequisite for the other in the current context.

State an unordered coordination: the team may use either pattern first or use them in parallel. No coordination episteme or ordering relation is required for that local judgement. If the later protocol revision becomes a named reliance that needs the coordination replayable, materialize one PatternUseCoordination@Context with orderingMode=unordered and no ordering relations. Their coexistence does not create a lifecycle or WorkPlan.

E.11.PUR:5.3 - Result-based precedence

A design team’s comparison rule requires the exact evaluation coordinates for candidates X and Y and their intended review question. The coordination selects its A.19.ECS candidate to supply that EvaluationCharacteristicSpaceSpec under a stated criterion for this task. The known rule, required content and supplier selection establish prerequisite-result precedence even while the spec is absent. Readiness is false when absence is known, or unresolved when its existence/applicability is unknown.

When a current PUA closure identifies the actual spec and its basis meeting those receiving conditions, readiness can be supported. If an earlier ECS result already meets them under §4.2.1, reuse that result without repeating ECS. A same-kind spec for another question is insufficient. If the comparison rule no longer requires this content, the dependency fails; if the rule itself is missing, the dependency is unresolved. Neither result changes candidate inspection or supplies Work authorization.

E.11.PUR:5.4 - Method precondition and a real ordered pair

An already-current material-kind classification is a solutionConditions fit fact for one machining candidate; it supplies no second candidate and no ordering pair.

By contrast, candidate A inspects the intact surface of one specimen and candidate B destructively tests that specimen. If B destroys the very surface condition A needs and A-before-B preserves both applicable uses, the methodPrecondition predicate supports that direction. If B leaves A’s required condition unaffected, this ground supplies no precedence. Two individually fitting candidates alone do not establish an edge.

E.11.PUR:5.5 - Shared resources and changes to support

Two candidate uses require the same exclusive instrument. Exclusion alone leaves their coordination conflict unresolved. An applicable selected schedule S1 assigning A before B supplies the directional sharedConstraintResolution basis; an applicable S2 selecting B before A defeats that A-before-B claim. An unknown priority rule leaves the direction unresolved. Adding both opposite edges would violate the strict-order cycle condition.

If a coordination description copied an old ECS expectation, replace the copy with the current exact expectation and required-content/supplier basis. Reassess the dependency only where that semantic content changed. A new closure or witness can instead change readiness without changing the ordering relation. A new rendering of S1 is descriptive; an actual change from S1 to S2 is constitutive and requires the changed order to be assessed. Candidate fit and unrelated dependencies remain usable.

E.11.PUR:5.6 - A higher recommendation score can reduce useful fit

An assistant ranks candidate pattern uses by historical recommendation acceptance. The familiar A.21 gate candidate receives a higher score and is recommended first more often for causal-use uncertainty. Recommendation acceptance rises, but wrong-turn returns also rise because the needed C.28 causal-use result is still absent.

The score improved while first-result fit and receiving-use value worsened. Keep the historical score as telemetry, apply E.13 to the substitution, and base the recommendation on current applicability, expected result, any current receiving use, and the other candidates still under consideration. A higher score is not another fit finding.