E.17.ID.CR:10 - Rationale

Teams already write small comparative review units, often as comparison notes or sheets, to move a review forward. What they usually lack is a disciplined way to keep that unit useful without letting it silently become an equivalence claim, a hidden hypothesis, a redesign push, or a release decision.

This pattern exists to protect that everyday bounded-comparison use. It keeps a comparative review unit usable by making five entries visible enough to inspect: the bounded comparative review unit, the source references, the bounded comparative lift, the blocked downstream claim or effect, and the boundary trigger that would end interpretation. The gain is practical: a team can compare available source epistemes or source publications honestly without pretending that a helpful review unit already carries more authority than it really does.