E.14:3 - Forces
-
Cognitive economy vs. semantic precision. Managers and engineers must navigate with a handful of names and relations; assurance authors must still check that each name has one intended model value, each relation claim has the required world-side basis, and identity conditions are explicit.
-
Speed of change vs. guarantees. The Working-Model must accommodate revision; support must be updated or its limits exposed before a use that depends on it.
-
Parsimony vs. expressivity. The Working‑Model should not proliferate relation types or ad‑hoc categories; fine‑grained distinctions live in the Assurance layers and are shown only when they materially change a decision.
-
Downward grounding vs. upward contamination. Present the readable claim before its needed Mapping, Logical, Constructive, or Empirical support. Assurance notation and record structure do not dictate the Working-Model’s wording or layout. If support defeats or narrows the claim, revise that claim under its direct governing rule and make the change visible.
-
Trans‑disciplinary unification vs. local dialects. The Working‑Model must reconcile different disciplines’ habits without erasing them; Mapping captures dialects, while the Working‑Model exposes a single usable choice.
-
Auditability vs. readability. Any Working-Model statement can be audited on request under the pattern that defines or tests its direct claim and any assurance profile selected for the current use; day-to-day views hide the scaffolding unless summoned.