E.19:4.2 - Apply the baseline profile to every run

Every run MUST include PCP‑BASE as a triage baseline. Full-depth checking is selected only where the relevant risk is present; reviewer depth SHOULD prioritize the FPF-governed sections and enforceable requirements in E.19:4.2.1.

1. Internal coherence (problem <-> conformance claim <-> solution) The Conformance Checklist matches Problem statement and the Solution (no “orphan requirements” and no “unclaimed requirements”).
2. Lexical discipline & reserved vocabulary Terms and registers follow lexical rules; ambiguous “everyday” synonyms do not silently replace kernel vocabulary.
3. SoTA-Echoing minimum compliance (E.8) SoTA-Echoing satisfies the E.8 authoring requirements applicable to the pattern kind (Architectural vs Definitional), including explicit adopt/adapt/reject stances and the E.8 two-part SoTA test: current best-known problem-solving practice for the named practice question, and by-value incorporation into FPF-governed pattern loci. If a SoTA Synthesis Pack exists for the topic, SoTA-Echoing binds to it rather than forking an untracked narrative; any divergence of pattern norms from contemporary practice is explicitly stated as such. SoTA-Echoing MUST be non-decorative, MUST reflect best-known current practice rather than official status, source recency, institutional adoption, or merely popular defaults for the declared problem, and MUST govern the Solution and other FPF-governed sections, or those sections MUST justify divergence explicitly.
4. Cross-pattern compatibility & impact radius Relations are consistent with declared dependencies and dependents; declared scope/impact is compatible or explicitly limited.
5. Didactic grounding Archetypal Grounding is present and teaches the concept with concrete cases or references, not only abstractions.
6. Reader-fit The pattern body addresses the intended FPF user in the working role governed by that pattern. FPF developers, package architects, reviewers, and evaluators are appropriate readers when they occupy that role. FPF-governed sections explain admissible use, costs, boundaries, the concrete definitions, constraints, tests, or other contributions used from FPF patterns named by value, project-side FPF kinds and references named by value, and related relations named by value in user terms. Architecture placement, freeze or merge state, package-boundary rationale, reference boilerplate, quality or projection evidence, corpus-entry evidence, PatternQualityStatus, monolith-parity evidence, landing evidence, and broader package-development rationale stay in DRR, architecture documents, review handoff, E.21 result, E.19 findings, README, ToC, E.11, cards, retrieval or projection carriers, release or landing evidence carriers, companions, or ordinary references unless they change the working reader’s first admissible move.
7. Template & section integrity This is lowest priority for review depth and SHOULD NOT consume effort that would displace ontology, semantics, modularity, slot discipline, or SoTA checks.
8. Modularity & contradiction hygiene The pattern SHOULD NOT be overloaded or significantly expand requirements or dependencies without an explicit reason and impact record. Checks include: scope containment, split/refactor recommendations when warranted, and contradiction scans against neighbor patterns in Relations. The pattern SHOULD balance cohesion and coupling across FPF. If the pattern defines specialization or an abstraction stack, it SHOULD NOT mix slot interfaces or parameters from different abstraction positions; use explicit ⊑/⊑⁺ or Uses cuts instead.
9. Substantive solution and locus adequacy Baseline triage includes a small reviewed-pattern-specific question set about the actual problem and current change: does the pattern still solve the stated problem, are decision loci and applications of the relevant patterns correct, are kind boundaries and selected companion or projection functions preserved, did anything get worse, are SoTA rows current enough for the claim they discipline, and is the support material required by that claim neither too thin nor too heavy?
10. Triggered method, performer, work, and result separation When a Solution says how work should be done, first distinguish content that defines, constrains, tests, or guides a Method from an assertion that one dated Work occurrence or world-side change actually obtains. Method guidance alone does not trigger a fictive performer or Work. If an account asserts dated U.Work, verify the §4 actual-Work account; if it asserts a world-side change, identify the change relation, the pattern that defines it, and the things it relates. Keep the intended-reader position, any qualifying A.3.2 method-description episteme, actual performer, Work, and problem-facing result separate. For a literal dated U.Work claim, return a finding when an episteme, checklist, plan, prose, or intended-reader or representation position is made to perform Work, or when Work and result are collapsed. Judge ordinary or metonymic wording through the complete-claim test in F.19; a familiar instrumental expression alone does not require a formal Work account.

E.19:4.2.1 - Triage: spend depth on FPF-governed sections without making reviews heavier

PQG is meant to increase semantic and ontological trust, not to turn every review into an exhaustive editorial audit on form. To keep reviews feasible while improving the important parts:

• Treat FPF-governed sections and deontic requirements as the primary depth loci:
  • the pattern’s Problem frame, Rationale, and worked slices when a new family, profile, or specialization would otherwise be intelligible only from project context,
  • reader fit in Problem, Solution, Consequences, Rationale, and worked slices whenever the draft risks mixing user guidance with package-development rationale,
  • the pattern’s Conformance Checklist (the enforceable conformance check set): keep items universal, cognitively ergonomic, not overly prohibitive, and avoid duplicating checks that belong to other patterns (modularity),
  • deontic clauses (MUST/SHALL/SHOULD/MAY) that define requirements on the authoring/validation plane (not laws of nature or mathematical facts; ensure an explicit conformance subject),
  • admissibility constraints (Invariant: / Well-formedness constraint:) that define valid models (cardinality, typing/kinds, totality) and are written as non-deontic predicates (no RFC keywords inside the predicate),
  • definitions and mint/reuse decisions (new terms, renamed terms, scope claims baked into names, names that are not overloaded and are properly chosen),
  • cross-context and cross-plane claims (Bridge hygiene and “sameness” assertions),
  • SoTA (when the pattern claims state-of-the-art rather than a popular-but-outdated solution or vocabulary),
  • substantive solution and locus adequacy: one reviewed-pattern-specific content pass checks whether the repaired text still solves the stated problem, assigns claim-bearing material to the correct governing loci named by value, preserves kind boundaries and selected companion or projection functions, keeps quality/projection evidence and executor/reviewer correspondence out of the pattern unless the pattern’s own EntityOfConcern and user-facing action are that evaluation/projection work, and has not become either under-grounded or over-bureaucratic,
  • modularity and Slot discipline of A.6.5 that provide evolvability of FPF,
  • absence of contradictions in a pattern,
  • Relations that define compatibility and impact radius.
• Give mechanical corrections a quick-pass when their scope is limited to the named mechanical property and their semantic and practical effects are unchanged, for example a micro-typo or heading-format correction. For live recoverability or contribution questions in stylistic or narrative rewriting, including RFC-form deontic cleanup, use the whole-span F.19 reading below. Automate a check only when the tool tests one clearly named property. A clean result closes only that property; it cannot establish semantics, ontology, practical usefulness, or source currentness.
• Do not block semantic review on template and RFC compliance defects. Missing header block fields (E.8 H-5), missing canonical sections, or a missing footer marker are fixable integrity defects. Record them as repair items and continue with the FPF-governed section checks in the same run.
• Whole-span precise language. Reviewers SHOULD apply the complete connected Solution in F.19 to the selected FPF-governed span: recover meaning, test the contribution of each optional expression, and compare useful content before and after repair. Retain its precision-before-coarsening order, MG-DA cold-reader recovery with its evidence-selection and coverage conditions, and hypergeneric/specialization test.
• Precision-restoration distribution must be preserved. Apply CC-E19-21; keep only review-specific questions here and use the declared language or subject owner for the repair.
• Review-specific continuity questions. Apply these to the changed claim and affected uses:
  1. Is the pattern’s own EntityOfConcern, first useful move, practical delta, and any action-changing applicability boundary recoverable, with its action guidance before auxiliary wording, publication, architecture-placement, package, or quality apparatus?
  2. After wording or reference migration, does the claim still reach the same referent through the intended slot or reference position and alignment path? Record any deliberate retargeting in the governing change decision.
  3. When phrase apparatus, semio bias, architecture placement, package rationale, or quality apparatus changed, did the repair preserve the function that was actually needed and remove only the displaced apparatus? Name each outside definition, constraint, or test by its supplying pattern and use a formal identity only for a live distinction or named reliance.
  4. Do the affected current consumers still receive the intended meaning and use? Resolve semantic, mechanical, or compatibility changes in the affected sources; report unresolved conflicts rather than creating a disposition for every unaffected consumer.
• Use preservation and guard selection are different decisions. Always compare the admissible uses of the old and repaired claims under their governing rules, including any expansion or narrowing. The F.19 plausible-reader test decides whether an explicit description, publication-use, or non-use guard deserves mention. A justified guard still undergoes the same before/after use comparison. Use F.19 and the direct owners for Method, Work, evidence, assurance, gate, status, decision, and unresolved role claims; dated Work uses CC-E19-0.

When E.21 is active, its PrecisionRestorationProfile carries the quality result; E.19 does not duplicate it.

• Design-time and run-time both count. The same precision discipline applies to FPF pattern prose and to any reviewed publication text, worked slice, or performed-work exemplar when that text is being assessed for admissibility, guidance, reuse, gating, release, policy, assurance, or action-selection use.
• Report ordering (impact-first). In run outputs and remediation direction, prioritize findings on ontology, semantic, modularity and SoTA-related FPF-governed sections first; group low-signal formatting/typos into one compact tail finding unless they change meaning.