E.19:4.3.2 - Common hardening questions are triggered by review need

Open a common hardening question when the concern has FPF-governed use, is disputed, or is explicitly invoked by the reviewed pattern or subset. Inspect the relevant source and the reviewed loci. In inspect-repair-verify, repair any defect and verify the affected use; in independent findings, record the defect and repair direction. When the question reveals no defect, make no durable absence or pass recital.

Use these questions only for the selected review concern:

1. Usability and working-reader fit. Open this when first-reading recognition text, assurance text, first-minute working-reader usability, practical payoff, worked slices, primary-reader fit, or E.8 / E.12 / E.13 / E.14 / E.17.* / F.16 checks can change the admission or refresh result. If a separate evaluation assigns a value, use that evaluation’s result rather than copying it into E.19 findings.

2. Scenario, anti-case, and utility-fit source set. Open this when a scenario pack, anti-case corpus, pilot bank, utility tree, fitness catalog, or analogous source is actually relevant or substantively disputed. Record only a missing, misused, or failing source/case as an E.19 finding.

3. Packaging, concrete pattern contribution, package relation, and shipping fit. Open this for a publication, pattern-contribution, or package-relation claim. The changed sources and governing publication or release result carry successful alignment; E.19 repairs or reports a mismatch.

4. Domain-tightened profile depth. Open this when a domain-specific note actually tightens a selected profile. Apply its questions; do not add a second account of positive results.

5. Accepted-decision or accepted-source-material carry-through. Open this when the reviewed pattern, subset, or current change is claimed to implement an accepted DRR, repair findings, intake material, architecture source material, or other accepted source material named by value. Inspect each independently applicable decision against the reviewed loci and the concrete pattern, claim, companion, result, or accepted source that carries it; require exact predicate or defining ClaimGraph identity only when that decision or the named reliance needs it. Repair or report partial, missing, wrongly rejected, wrongly routed, or wrongly classified carry-through. The accepted source remains the decision source; E.19 does not duplicate decisions that are expressed sufficiently, inherited unchanged, correctly absent, or outside the reviewed subset. An E.17.ID.CR comparative review unit, PublicationUnit, publication form or face, source-pinned interpretation case, source material, or project-side review relation retains its own kind in that comparison.

6. Decision-useful advice and evidence demands. Open this when a pattern’s advice, feasibility or evidential burden is in question and can change the review result. Use C.11.DUA to recover the demanded work, compare its attainable contribution and burden, and examine a disputed requirement’s merits and force. Follow the selected method through its result, prescribed fields and stopping point: retain the useful basis and any explanation the decision or recipient needs, while inactive inquiry creates no omission account. A worthwhile evidence demand remains. Apply F.19 to wording that needs repair; this question adds no universal profile or second language pass.

For PCP-ENTRY, the ordinary compact pattern-local change note remains enough when the governed discoverability decision requires one; no separate E.19 account is created merely because the profile was checked.