E.17.ID.CR:7.2 - ID.CR-Conditional checks

1. CC-ID-4 - Base-case governing-pattern relation is explicit. A reviewer can tell why the case does not really belong to A.6.3.*, an F.9 Bridge or bounded-use branch, an F.9.1 stance-note branch, E.17.EFP, B.5.2(.0), OntologicalReframing, or A.6.4.
2. CC-ID-5 - Bridge declaration does not hide. If the case depends on bridge-mediated comparison, bridgeOccurrenceRef and boundedUseClaimRef are required. The latter resolves a claim whose EntityOfConcern is that Bridge and whose use/direction/rule/loss/polarity tuple matches the comparative unit. Positive use requires affirmative polarity and, when A.10 or B.3 is triggered, current reliance for that exact use; degraded reliance narrows it, while a negative, abstaining, reopened, evidence-needed, blocked, or mismatched result stops it. Authorization and actual comparative-review Work remain separate. Optional bridgeCardRef remains packaging; optional bridgeStanceRef resolves a separate F.9.1 episteme whose EntityOfConcern is that claim.
3. CC-ID-7 - Reader-fit stays bounded. targetUserModel, interactionMode, contrastiveQuestion, boundedComparativeUse, and overreadRisk are visible when needed, but they do not create an authority claim that the unit does not carry.

Checklist recovery map. If an assurance-side reader wants to recover one checklist row by value, use the nearest ordinary card row and worked recovery below before treating the checklist as self-sufficient: