E.21 - FPF Pattern-Quality Evaluation CharacteristicSpace

Type: Pattern Status: Stable

E.21:1 - Problem frame

Use this when an authored FPF pattern edition or bounded version must be evaluated for quality under a named use: ordinary practitioner use, authoring input, landing input, release input, external-review input, high-assurance reuse input, canonization input, or another explicit pattern-quality use. E.21 declares the characteristic space, evaluation specification, and result rules. An evaluator applies the quality questions. The evaluator does not replace the required ClaimScope with an easier one. If the pattern fails the required use, the result episteme states repairBeforeUse, holdForArchitectureDecision, or refreshNeeded; a different use needs a different evaluation frame and does not rescue this result.

Not this pattern when the evaluated object is one DRR, an FPF-level corpus object, a single wording repair, a source-use decision, or a project-side evidence, assurance, gate, release, safety, compliance, work, or decision claim. Use E.9.DA for a DRR, E.2.DA for an FPF-level corpus object, F.19 for a wording repair, and the pattern governing a source-use or project-side claim for that claim. Open E.10 or a named precision-restoration neighbor for an unresolved FPF-specific meaning.

First useful move: name the exact pattern edition, required use and scope, working reader, and qualification window. Read its working situation, first useful move, practical delta, boundaries, and evidence. Then assign every coordinate an evidence-based value with an adjacent-value rationale and constitute the aggregate result.

floorEvaluation changes only the declared floor and expected evidence economy. An E.21 result retains the required ClaimScope, full coordinate set, rationales, and PrecisionRestorationProfile. Fragmentary, wrong-shaped, or weak pattern text is still evaluated under the required scope; weakness receives low coordinate values, repair status, architecture hold, or refresh status.

What goes wrong if missed: pattern quality becomes taste, checklist closure, source count, review state, landing state, or length. Short patterns can pass while missing mature content; long patterns can pass while hiding the first user-facing action; semio material can take over a non-semio pattern.

What this pattern buys: one scoped, non-arithmetic PatternQualityQBundle claim about one exact pattern edition, one complete coordinate set, explicit evidence basis, adjacent-value rationales, and a visible stop, repair, hold, or refresh status.

Primary EntityOfConcern in plain terms: one exact authored FPF pattern edition or bounded version checked under one declared quality scope and qualification window. Keep the quality questions, evaluator, coordinate claims, aggregate result, evidence use, any admission decision, and later repair distinct. Use Solution item 5 and CC-E21-0 only when a later claim needs a dated assessment-Work account.

E.21:2 - Problem

FPF patterns need a quality evaluation that is stronger than a style checklist and lighter than a project assurance audit. Earlier review habits produced two opposite failures:

1. Too weak. A reviewer marks a pattern “ready” because no blocker is obvious, because it landed, or because headings exist.
2. Too heavy. A reviewer adds more warnings, evidence cards, source rows, boundary notes, and process residues until the pattern becomes harder to use.

E.21 solves this by measuring the pattern of concern against one complete coordinate set. The coordinates ask whether the pattern is usable, coherent, current, precise, affordable, mature enough for its claim, and safe from proxy improvement.

E.21:3 - Forces

E.21:4 - Solution

E.21 declares the FPF pattern-quality U.CharacteristicSpace, its object-specific A.19.ECS evaluation specification, ordinal scale, complete result-shape rules, the local non-arithmetic PatternQualityQBundle result payload, and local result-status meanings. An evaluator applies these questions to the pattern and assigns its coordinate values. Evidence use, assurance, admission, and later repair have their own objects and relations below.

For one pattern-quality evaluation, keep independently recoverable the objects and relations that the selected ordinary or Work-bearing form actually asserts:

1. one exact authored FPF pattern edition or bounded version as the checked object;
2. the declared ClaimScope, working reader, intended receiving use, qualification window, evidence basis, and evaluation configuration;
3. the selected U.CharacteristicSpace, this E.21 evaluation-specification episteme, every coordinate/scale binding, and the local result-form and status-value rules;
4. when exact Method identity or actual assessment Work is asserted, one separately identified semantic evaluation U.Method;
5. when actual dated assessment U.Work is asserted, first recover every evaluator-performer’s A.13 core for the assessment action. A.15.1 then independently admits the Work from its performance history, enacted Method, temporal extent, and one obtaining locally declared relation to the containing U.System, under the exact system boundary and qualification window. Add F.6 only when the evaluation account also needs precise assignment-bound attribution, using the same obtaining A.13 assignment. A compact account may omit an identifier unused by the receiving claim only when every relation it consumes remains recoverable;
6. every coordinate-result claim, their same-bearer non-arithmetic PatternQualityQBundle ClaimGraph payload, and one C.2.1 aggregate pattern-quality-result episteme when a durable result is needed;
7. witnesses, comparator/source/case refs, exact A.10 evidence-use/provenance relations and bounded reliance results, and any B.3 result for an actual named assurance claim;
8. an optional evaluation-record episteme that packages those refs;
9. the local PatternQualityStatus value and any separate F.10 status use/interpretation, E.19 admission or refresh decision, project gate or authority decision, publication, and currentness relation; and
10. later E.23 improvement or other repair work and its changed pattern edition.

A.6.1 enters only when a separately admitted U.Mechanism declares the exact operation that was actually used and the receiving claim needs that application occurrence or its bindings. Then name the mechanism and operation and require that operation’s ApplicationPredicate, ApplicationIdentityRule, ApplicationExtentRule, argument and result declarations, declaration-local binding predicates, exact application occurrence, and actual declaration-local bindings. Treat the checked pattern, configuration, coordinate results, and aggregate result as application inputs or results only when the operation declares those exact meanings and the corresponding bindings actually obtain. Otherwise omit PatternQualityEvaluationApplicationRef; the dated-Work and result accounts remain complete without it.

In the ordinary form, an admitted evaluator U.System applies the quality questions. A claim of dated assessment Work opens item 5; an A.6.1 application requires the independently satisfied operation condition above. Any local evaluator system-role kind and independently obtaining System-classification judgment are optional separate claims. Route unresolved source role through E.10.ROLE.

Each coordinate-result claim is one quality ascription about the exact checked pattern edition. It keeps recoverable the bearer, effective ReferenceScheme, characteristic, scale value, evaluation rule or probe, comparison or calibration frame when used, U.ClaimScope, intended use, qualification window, ordinary assessing action or exact declared-operation application when separately asserted, short rationale, and evidence locus. The complete same-bearer coordinate set forms the non-arithmetic PatternQualityQBundle payload carried by the aggregate result episteme. The evaluator system, evaluator viewpoint episteme if any, witness set, optional record, and receiving status or admission use remain separate.

One conforming two-level assessment-and-result shape applies:

1. configure the checked pattern edition, scope, use, reader, window, characteristic space and specification, and evidence basis; include the exact semantic evaluation Method only when its identity or actual assessment Work is asserted;
2. let the admitted evaluator U.System apply the specification; add item 5 only when the result deliberately asserts dated assessment Work, and add an A.6.1 application only when the compact conditional rule above is independently satisfied;
3. constitute every coordinate-result claim with ShortRationale and the aggregate result episteme;
4. assert the local PatternQualityStatus in that result;
5. state its stop, repair, architecture-hold, or refresh condition; and
6. when improvement is requested, return distinct finding or proposal claims without changing the coordinate result into a work plan.

If a pattern lacks frame, first move, source basis, mature comparison, or naming clarity, lower the relevant coordinates in the one E.21 result.

A bounded lexical, checklist, or automated smell screen may identify suspect loci and reduce search cost. Record the checked edition, covered defect family, and observed limits in EvaluationEvidenceBasis; the screen neither assigns a coordinate value nor establishes semantic completeness, practical use, or the aggregate result.

When candidate editions are compared, keep the declared use, reader, probes, and evidence conditions common where possible and expose missing or underrepresented evidence. This supports replayable comparison; it does not turn ordinal coordinates into one score or establish evaluator agreement that has not been studied.

An E.21 result evaluates one exact edition for one declared use. It does not validate the pattern universally. A stronger validation claim needs separately declared expert checks, observed applications or cases, or other fit-for-purpose research evidence. Missing actual-use evidence therefore caps only the coordinates whose stronger values require it.

E.21:4.1 - Local names and kind settlement

Names are local to pattern-quality evaluation unless F.18 promotes a durable name. Each has only the direct function stated above; any later receiving use requires its own relation.

E.21:4.2 - Evaluation configuration, application, result, and optional record

PatternQualityEvaluationConfiguration:
  PatternOfConcernRef: <exact authored FPF pattern edition or bounded version>
  ClaimScope: <declared quality claim>
  WorkingReaderScope: <reader and first-use situation>
  IntendedUse: <what may consume the result>
  QualificationWindow: <edition, source, neighbour, release, or comparison window>
  PatternQualityCharacteristicSpaceRef: <exact A.19 characteristic space>
  PatternQualityEvaluationSpecRef: <this E.21 specification edition>
  SemanticPatternQualityEvaluationMethodRef: <exact U.Method when its identity or actual assessment Work is asserted; otherwise omitted>
  QualityEvaluationQuestionFrameRef: <E.22 frame when used>
  EvaluationEvidenceBasis: <checked pattern, corpus, source, comparator, case, and projection loci; missing or unchecked loci named explicitly when they affect values>

When dated assessment Work is asserted:
  AssessmentWorkRef: <PatternQualityAssessmentWorkRef: the dated assessment U.Work independently admitted under A.15.1>
  EvaluatorSystemRefs: <every admitted U.System that performed AssessmentWorkRef>
  EvaluatorA13CoreBasisRefs: <for every precise performer, exact local agential kind and
    criterion, classification, same obtaining assignment, scope, working situation, window,
    and adequate core evidence; add a characteristic profile only when separately consumed>
  AssessmentTemporalExtent: <exact extent of W>
  WorkToSystemRelationBasis: <name one locally declared Work-to-System predicate and its
    obtaining relation for AssessmentWorkRef, the exact containing U.System, system boundary,
    and qualification window>
  EnactedMethodRef: <the exact A.3.1 U.Method enacted by AssessmentWorkRef>
  PreciseAssignmentAttributionRefs?: <only when the receiving claim needs exact
    assignment-bound attribution; for every performer cite the direct case fact that it
    performed AssessmentWorkRef under the same obtaining A.13 assignment, the declared
    assignment species and participant values, holder equality, the obtaining assignment
    predicate and interval, coverage of AssessmentTemporalExtent, and the resulting F.6 link>
  EvaluationConfigurationRef:
When an exact declared-operation application is also asserted:
  ApplicationAndBindingAccount: <the separately admitted mechanism, exact declared operation and application occurrence, and actual declaration-local bindings required by the compact A.6.1 rule in E.21:4>
PatternQualityResultEpisteme:
  EntityOfConcern: <same exact PatternOfConcernRef>
  EffectiveReferenceScheme:
  ClaimGraph:
    PatternQualityQBundle:
      ClaimScope:
      WorkingReaderScope:
      IntendedUse:
      QualificationWindow:
      PrecisionRestorationProfile: <E.21:4.3a compact quality summary; issue-bearing detail only when needed>
      CoordinateValueRationales: <all required coordinates, values, short rationales>
      CoordinateEvidenceRefs:
      PatternQualityStatus: <local result value>
      StopCondition: <local stop, first repair, hold, or refresh>
      ReopenCondition: <change that requires reconsidering this result>
      BoundedNonUse?: <only when an independently grounded competing use or plausible confusion changes the result's use>
  AssessmentApplicationRef: <PatternQualityEvaluationApplicationRef: exact A.6.1 occurrence ref only when the declared-operation condition holds; otherwise omitted>
  PatternQualityWitnessRefs:
  PatternQualityEvidenceUseRefs:
PatternQualityEvaluationRecord: <optional packaging of configuration, application or work, result, witness or evidence, reopen refs, and any grounded non-use boundary>

An unfinished table, prose summary, or record with missing coordinate claims remains assessment material. A complete E.21 result places every required coordinate claim in the result episteme; the objects named in E.21:4.1 retain their stated functions.

E.21:4.3 - Ordinal scale, result row, and adjacent-value rationale

Values are ordinal content evaluations. They are not U.Measures, averages, percentages, maturity-ladder steps, review votes, or landing status.

The result-bearing coordinate row has exactly this shape:

For values 1..4, explain why the lower adjacent value would understate the evidence and the higher adjacent value would overstate it. For 0, explain why 1 would overstate the evidence and what would raise the value or reopen it. For 5, explain why 4 would understate the evidence and what would lower the value or reopen it.

A two-column coordinate-and-value table, a narrative paragraph, a table whose comment lacks adjacent-value comparison, or a result whose value depends on unchecked external loci is not an E.21 result. It is only draft evaluation material until every coordinate has a ShortRationale row and the result names the EvaluationEvidenceBasis used for values that depend on source, comparator, corpus, projection, or worked-case evidence.

A ShortRationale is allowed to be compact, but it is not allowed to be evidenceless. When the value depends on a source-currentness row, mature comparator, README scenario, ToC row, E.11 entry-distribution locus, I.2 expanded entry-disambiguation case, card, retrieval cue, monolith section, worked slice, near-miss, or anti-case, the rationale names that locus by value or says that the locus was missing or unchecked. “By value” means a recoverable section, row, case, checklist item, relation, source row, projection row, comparator id plus selected ingredient, or specific absent locus; a category list such as “entry, first move, boundaries, SoTA, checklist, relations” is not by-value discharge. An established absence of required content or support lowers the affected value under its declared anchor. An unperformed check or unavailable basis leaves the dependent value unestablished: name the missing judgement and retain the complete evaluation as draft material under the preceding rule. Preserve independently supported coordinate values. This evidence gap supplies neither a low property value nor an admissible-use result. For SoTABindingAndCurrentness, source identity and currentness support traceability only. One completed canonical E.8:11 comparison supplies the required comparison basis; the evaluator assigns the value from that substantive comparison and its binding into the checked pattern.

A 5 is not a reward for clear early wording, named neighbour relations, or a well-formed field set alone. It needs exceptional expression for the declared use: reinforcing loci, a worked or otherwise replayable slice where the coordinate demands one, and no hidden cost or neighbour loss. When the evaluator cannot say why 4 would understate the evidence, assign 4 or lower.

When a coordinate’s 5 meaning names a filled case, replayable slice, near-miss, anti-case, worked comparison, projection evidence, currentness basis, or selected-neighbour replay, absence of that evidence caps that coordinate at 4 even if the prose is otherwise strong. Do not hide the same absence only in CaseCountercaseAndTransferCoverage; lower every coordinate whose own 5 meaning needs that missing evidence. A 5 rationale names the reinforcing evidence loci that make 4 too weak.

For MaturePatternParityAndSelectedContentSufficiency, the rationale names a mature-pattern comparison set and the selected mature ingredients being claimed. For non-epistemic patterns, include at least one mature non-epistemic comparator when one exists—for example, a mature pattern about Work, Method, a system-role kind, a system-role assignment, direct-relation participation, a System, control, architecture, selection, engineering action, or another primary EntityOfConcern that is neither an episteme nor a publication. Route an unresolved source role through E.10.ROLE rather than treating the word as one pattern family. Value 4 requires by-value discharge of selected ingredients in the body or neighboring pattern that defines or constrains the claims; comparator IDs plus a generic “main ingredients are present” sentence are only value 3. The comparison is not a length target and not permission to copy semio apparatus.

For a 4 or 5 on MaturePatternParityAndSelectedContentSufficiency, include a compact maturity-discharge payload in the rationale or CoordinateEvidenceRefs: comparator=<pattern id>; selectedIngredient=<ingredient name>; currentLocus=<section, row, case, checklist item, relation, or neighboring pattern governing the claim>; missingOrLowering=<absent or weak ingredient, if any>. A category list such as “frame, first move, neighbour relations, CC, SoTA, relations” without current loci is still value 3, even when the listed categories are plausible mature ingredients.

Use the question-to-ground and result-acceptance operation in E.22:4.3 within this evaluation.

E.21:4.3a - Precision-restoration profile

Before assigning the coordinate table, apply the whole-span precise-language reading in F.19 and record one PrecisionRestorationProfile summarizing its quality effect. F.19 governs the reading, repair, and local revalidation; E.21 consumes their result for its existing coordinates. The reading asks which governed object, claim, relation, and reader use the sentence, table, section, or repeated content family serves in the pattern of concern.

Use F.19’s evidence-selection and coverage conditions for recoverability. Name the kind of basis and its material reading conditions in EvaluationEvidenceBasis; use checkedLoci for the text and relations it actually covers. A clean profile retains those qualifications. If F.19 requires an actual reading that is missing, the dependent recovery claim lacks that basis. Apply E.21:4.3’s missing-evidence rule to the affected coordinates and identify the missing judgement. Distinguish this evidence gap from a wording defect established by reading the text.

Use this compact shape:

PrecisionRestorationProfile:
  overallEffect: <clean | boundedLocal | lowersCoordinates | repairBeforeUse>
  checkedLoci: <sections, rows, cases, and relations checked>
  affectedCoordinates: <coordinates lowered or protected>
  repairProposal?: <actual repair or blocker and its locus>
  kindRestorationCheck?: <when a changed FPF-governed expression can alter meaning: pre-repair and proposed post-repair object, kind, relation, current ontic slot, relation position, use relation, claim kind, admissible use, and scope; preserved | split | intentionally changed by accepted decision | blocker>

The diagnostic fields below are optional. Retain a field when its finding, restoration choice, or bounded evidence changes the quality result; a clean result needs no separate clean entry for each field. Fuller profiles use the same field meanings. When a receiving form needs an explicit untriggered kindRestorationCheck disposition, it may use not triggered, ordinary prose, or no FPF-governed phrase changed with the checked locus; this is optional detail in E.21.

The scalar is the strongest quality effect that any layer requires: clean, bounded local repair, coordinate lowering, or repair-before-use. Classify a new symptom under the relevant diagnostic layer or restoration locus and apply its effect to existing E.21 coordinates. F.19 settles ordinary whole-span language questions. Open E.10, E.10.ARCH, or F.18 for an unresolved word, head, or name problem; for hidden candidate ontics and ontic-vs-description-vs-publication boundaries, use E.24.CD, E.24.PUB, or the concrete pattern content that defines or constrains the disputed object; claim, relation, evidence, Work, decision, assurance, publication, or pattern-application problems return to the pattern content that defines, constrains, or tests the disputed item. A pattern reference locates the content whose concrete contribution the evaluation uses. Exact predicates and ClaimGraph identity are required only when the evaluated claim or named reliance needs them. E.21 consumes only the result: which coordinates fall, which stay protected, and what repair would make the quality claim true. The mgdaColdReaderRecoverability layer asks whether a reader without the DRR, campaign notes, or evaluator memory can recover the object, kind or ordinary status, relation or claim position, admissible use, next exact assertion when one is needed, and next concrete defining, constraining, or checking contribution. If a repair replaces a specific phrase with object, item, value, relation, record, condition, basis, material, or unqualified specialization and the reader cannot recover what specializes what, which relation is live, or which assertion or concrete pattern contribution is required, this layer is not clean.

When this layer finds a hidden candidate ontic or publication-form confusion, the E.21 result records only the quality effect and affected coordinates. Candidate detection, ontic placement, slot-relation design, and publication-boundary repair remain with E.24.CD, E.24.PUB, or the concrete pattern whose content defines or constrains the affected object. The kindRestorationCheck is required when a changed FPF-governed expression can alter the meaning-bearing object, kind, relation, current ontic slot, relation position, use relation, claim kind, admissible use, or scope. It records those live values before and after the proposed repair, then names the concrete contribution when another pattern defines, constrains, or tests the affected kind, relation, claim, or position (A.6.0, A.6.5, A.6.P, C.29, A.15, E.24.CD, E.24.PUB, E.10.ARCH, or another relevant pattern). Every value that can drift receives an explicit preserved, split, intentionally changed by accepted decision, or blocker disposition. When no such risk is present, F.19’s ordinary local revalidation is sufficient and the profile omits this field. The underlying slot, ontic, publication-form, and mathematical-lens rules remain with their subject patterns. A lexical replacement is not a repair when it only removes a trigger word, substitutes one umbrella for another, narrows a graph or method into a work sequence, widens a work occurrence into a method, turns a publication form or evidence source into the object itself, or otherwise changes kind, current ontic slot, relation position, use relation, or claim kind without an accepted decision. If the kind, current ontic slot, relation position, use relation, or claim kind cannot be recovered, the profile is at least lowersCoordinates; if the proposed repair would change one of them and no accepted DRR or concrete defining, constraining, or checking pattern content justifies that change, the result is repairBeforeUse or holdForArchitectureDecision.

When the profile is not clean, lower every affected coordinate named by the profile. Do not hide a present precision-restoration issue only in EntityOfConcernPrimacyAndSemioBiasResistance, and do not raise the result through related-pattern-boundary praise, projection evidence, or “correct but true” guards when those materials compete with the pattern’s own EntityOfConcern, first useful move, practitioner action, practical delta, or next useful action.

E.21:4.4 - RequiredPatternQualityCoordinates

For every conforming E.21 result, an admitted evaluator U.System applies the evaluation specification to every coordinate, and the result episteme states every coordinate value and rationale.

Constraint, harm, safety, security, compliance, deontic, self-application, recursion, and high-assurance questions do not add a second coordinate family. Evaluate them through the applicable coordinate for that content: related-pattern authority, traceability, formal-claim admissibility, falsifiability, affordability, corpus ecology, evolution, or refresh.

Coupled-flow unity and separation for pattern quality. Use this account when the declared quality use needs the relation between development, use, evaluation, and repair flows. Dated E.21 assessment work evaluates one exact PatternOfConcernRef inside a development, refresh, or admission flow. Another flow may make the same pattern a pattern of concern for a different use relation, for example a practitioner selecting and using it, a reviewer applying it to another text, or subsequent assessment work reopening it. One TransformationFlowStructure may join pattern development, pattern use, use-found evaluation, and repair or refresh flows through transfer, feedback, return, edition-change, or projection relations only when every included valuation or internal portion resolves to that same TFS and structural boundary. Independently identified TFS values and relations across their boundaries use E.18.NET. Keep three positions distinct in each sentence: the pattern as concern of the current flow, the intended reader addressed by the pattern, and the pattern’s own primary EntityOfConcern inside its Problem, Solution, or guidance. E.21 and E.19 are specifications; dated assessment and review work are the checking operations; handoffs, ledgers, README, ToC, E.11, I.2, retrieval outputs, and landing evidence are distinct records, publications, or evidence loci in the development/evaluation flow. Those objects may support edits to the pattern, but they are not automatically user-facing content for the reader addressed by it. DesignRunTag stays on the subject-context, claim, work, trace, publication-form relation, or source relation inside the transformation-flow structure; recover currentness, obsolescence, development, and use from their own relations. In pattern development, use quality-loop evidence to guide separately performed repairs and keep that evidence in the evaluation record.

E.21:4.4a - Frequent value-3, value-4, and value-5 calibration points

These rows calibrate common disagreements. They do not replace the coordinate definitions above.

For EntityOfConcernPrimacyAndSemioBiasResistance, do not compensate a bad PrecisionRestorationProfile with NeighborAuthorityAndBoundedUseFit or CorpusEntryProjectionAndEcologyFit. Ask which governed object, claim, relation, and reader use the sentence serves. Material about developing, reviewing, projecting, landing, evaluating, or proving this pattern’s quality belongs in the evaluation, projection, release, or publication locus that carries that work. Related-pattern statements can be true and still damage the pattern when they precede its own EntityOfConcern and application guidance. If the opening Problem frame or Solution starts with precision-restoration material before the subject and move, this coordinate is at most 2; if the reader must traverse that material across sections to find the action, it is at most 3. Put compact concrete contributions in Relations or a late boundary row. Add local guard prose only when it passes F.19:4’s full independent-ground, plausible-reader, contribution, and smallest-clear-correction test and the subject pattern does not already settle the needed distinction. Also lower PatternApplicationGuidance, WorkingSituationAndUseBoundaryRecognizability, PracticalUseDeltaAndHarmPrevention, and UseAffordabilityAndApparatusProportionality when the profile shows that auxiliary material displaces first use. If the declared use is Stable, landing-input, release-input, external-review-ready, or another corpus-facing use, assessment work must inspect the applicable corpus-entry and projection evidence and the result’s EvaluationEvidenceBasis must name it. A host-only body assessment can still produce values about the pattern body, but it cannot silently turn missing README, ToC, E.11, I.2, card, retrieval, monolith, or projection evidence into a high CorpusEntryProjectionAndEcologyFit value.

E.21:4.5 - Status and stop condition

Default floor is 4 wellExpressedForDeclaredUse on every coordinate for ordinary practitioner use, authoring-input use, landing-input use, Stable, external-review-ready, release-input, canonization-input, stop-improving claims, and ordinary improvement-loop use. Every result presented as an E.21 result contains every coordinate and its rationale, including a diagnostic or exploratory E.21 result. A bounded diagnostic may borrow selected E.21 questions; it reports only their findings and makes neither an E.21-result nor an admissible-use claim. If the current request asks for corpus-facing, landing-input, Stable, release, or external-review use, the evaluator measures that required use and returns repairBeforeUse, holdForArchitectureDecision, or refreshNeeded when the floor is missed.

An all-5 result is a local exceptional result under the declared scope and qualification window. It is not a permanent end of development. E.23 can reopen improvement when use, source, comparison set, front, affordability, or payoff changes.

E.21:4.5.1 - Consume Pattern-Edition Use-Value Evidence Noncompensatorily

When an E.19:4.3.3 replay is current, use that one stable-candidate replay as evidence for the E.21 assessment. During assessment, keep materially affected predecessor and candidate-only uses distinguishable whenever their action, result, boundary, necessity, or consequence can differ; do not copy clean per-use dispositions into the E.21 result. The evaluator still applies every existing coordinate required by the declared scope once. The result names the replay loci in EvaluationEvidenceBasis and carries only distinctions, failures, or improvements that actually change a coordinate rationale or PatternQualityStatus; it does not replace the coordinate set with one use-value score, average replay results, or infer a coordinate value from an E.19 outcome.

Apply these consequences: