E.15:5 - Archetypal Grounding

Tell. Change the smallest semantic unit that solves the problem, but judge continuity at the scale where a reader or consumer could actually be harmed.

E.15:5.1 - Typo with no semantic reach

An identifier is spelled correctly everywhere except one explanatory sentence. The exact identifier, instruction, and checks remain unchanged. The author repairs the sentence, verifies the identifier and nearby reference, classifies the actual change as Δ-0, and stops. Three alternative phrasings and a DRR would add no value.

E.15:5.2 - Plain-language repair after an ontology correction

A relation passage is ontologically exact but has grown into two pages of qualifications that hide the first action. The candidate restores one readable explanation and keeps the exact relation test in the assurance section. Because a substantial rewrite can lose ideas, the author independently inventories the predecessor’s entry, action, conditions, examples, and prohibitions, then reads the whole candidate as a cold user. If every semantic function remains, the result may be Δ-1 or Δ-2 depending on whether a normative clarification also occurred; the word count does not decide.

E.15:5.3 - One-word semantic change with dependent consumers

A conformance rule changes may to must. The diff is one word, but admissible use and failure conditions change. The actual class is Δ-3. The author repairs examples, checklist items, and direct consumers that relied on the optional branch and rechecks their conclusions. Unrelated source and publication checks are reused.

E.15:5.4 - A source edition changes one relied-on premise

A current research edition revises a limitation used by one SoTA decision. The pattern’s other sources and practitioner steps do not depend on that premise. The author reopens that one source-use decision and its receiving passage, not every source row and not the whole corpus. If the selected action changes, the affected consumers follow; if it does not, the account states why the current result remains supported.

E.15:5.5 - A real architecture choice

A pattern could model a new distinction as a local value, a direct relation, or a selected structure, and each choice changes downstream use. No single repair is yet selected. The author records the alternatives in the DRR, uses subject-specific criteria and E.21/E.22 qualities, and may use C.18/C.19 to broaden the candidate set. The comparison stops when the intended use supports one non-dominated architecture; search machinery is not retained as a universal authoring obligation.