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, including a worked comparison, 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.