E.1:5 - Conformance Checklist
| ID | Requirement | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| CC‑Vision.1 | A claim proposing practical material realization or a physical intervention MUST name the action, relevant resources, conditions and constraints, and a feasibility basis sufficient for the intended decision. | Keeps practical proposals materially grounded at the point where realization is claimed. |
| CC‑Vision.2 | Every normative rule MUST demonstrably support at least one core invariant (Evolvability, Cross‑Scale Coherence, Didactic Transparency). | Keeps the Canon lean and purpose‑driven. |
| CC‑Vision.3 | Abstract Core definitions MUST exclude incidental implementation dependence under E.5.1. Exact syntax MAY remain when necessary to state the conformance condition of the named publication form, protocol or grammar, with its edition/use boundary. | Preserves portable concepts and usable rules about concrete forms. |
| CC‑Vision.4 | A conformant artefact MUST state a measurable benefit for at least one of the three roles (Engineer, Researcher, Learner) or justify omission. | Aligns success with stakeholder trajectories. |
Mathematical constructions retain their own validity and composition conditions. Material feasibility becomes an additional question when a claim proposes realizing a construction materially or intervening in a physical system. A missing manufacturing method, resource or constraint basis leaves that proposed action unresolved; a physical expression of a mathematical object establishes no realization of its elements.
An in-principle feasibility claim does not assert that production occurred. Actual Work, change, entity inception and production completion require their separate bases under A.12, A.15.1 and A.15.PROD when those claims are made.
E.1:5.1 - Three different questions about construction
- Mathematical product. A construction of R² × R³ needs its defined elements, product operations and applicable mathematical laws. With no proposed material realization, it needs no manufacturing actor or resource budget. Printing the construction on paper produces a carrier, not physical copies of all its elements.
- Proposed pump assembly. An engineer proposes assembling a named shaft and housing with a required clearance of 0.05–0.10 mm. The feasibility claim cites the manufacturing/assembly method, available equipment and materials, and the tolerance calculation supporting the stated clearance under those conditions. If the equipment capability or tolerances are unknown, return that missing basis before claiming feasibility for the decision. A valid drawing alone is insufficient.
- Manufactured pump. Claiming that pump P17 was produced additionally needs the actual assembly Work and change, and the independently applicable inception/completion facts. In an illustrative trace, a measured 0.07 mm clearance can support that one completion criterion; it supplies neither the whole production account nor an untested performance claim. A.12, A.15.1 and A.15.PROD govern those occurrence claims, while any actual composition retains its own composition rules.
E.1:5.2 - Decide a proposed reuse rule and its benefit
An engineer proposes instruction R1: “Before reusing a result, compare its subject/edition, question/use, relied sources/dependencies and qualification/currentness with this decision. Reuse only if they still answer the concern; reopen the affected question otherwise.” The artifact is a short instruction with that comparison and a filled case.
R1 supports Didactic Transparency by making the reason for reuse or reopening inspectable, and Evolvability by identifying which changed premise reopens the result. Its intended measurable benefit for the engineer is fewer invalid reuse decisions than the simpler rule “reuse the result with the same label.” The scope of the following evidence is only this stipulated desk comparison:
| Same task: decide whether the result may be reused | Label-only rule | R1 |
|---|---|---|
| The label and all four relevant conditions match. | Reuse. | Reuse after the comparison. |
| The label matches, but a relied-on source now concerns a different population. | Reuse, including an inapplicable result. | Reopen the affected applicability question before reuse. |
There is one invalid reuse under the label-only rule and none under R1 in these two cases. This supports the stated failure-prevention argument; it is not an observation of reader behavior or proof that review is faster. The added comparison has a cost. If a receiver claims “R1 makes all reviews 20% faster” without observations, remove that outcome claim and retain the bounded aim, or select a task-matched inquiry before making it. If the proposed rule merely requires a new label and says “supports Evolvability,” return the missing continuity or change-handling contribution; the label alone does not satisfy CC-Vision.2.
The next action is therefore specific: use the supported instruction for this bounded concern, investigate a claimed reader benefit through E.12 when worthwhile, or repair the unsupported invariant argument. New evidence about the source population reopens applicability; new evidence about reading cost reopens the benefit claim.