E.22:4 - Solution
E.22 gives one compact declaration for improvement-oriented quality evaluation questions. It keeps the question from replacing the evaluation and keeps the evaluation result from becoming a decision or work product beyond its authority.
E.22:4.0 - Form a usable first request
Start from the result the recipient needs. A document can be required to explain an operation; the operation can be required to obtain a result; that result can support another decision. Select the object and judgement needed now. A candidate’s narrower description cannot establish that the larger receiving need has been satisfied.
- Name the use and object version. Say who needs the answer, what work or decision it will inform, and which version is being evaluated. Include the conditions that make a difference to that use. If the receiving need is unclear, recover it with the recipient or the applicable problem-formulation method.
- Choose the question and criterion. Say whether the recipient needs floor adequacy, further improvement, a comparison of trade-offs or the effect of applied findings. Use the characteristic space and predicate or comparator supplied by an adequate evaluation. State the floor or improvement aim and the qualities a proposed repair must preserve.
- Connect the criterion to attainable grounds. Identify the content, observations or reasoning needed to answer it. Following a source into an instruction can establish a coherent construction; trying the instruction on material can expose a missing action; an observed application can support a performance claim under its conditions. State which answer is required, what the intended reader or performer can supply, and what the candidate must supply. If indispensable grounds are absent, ask for the exact unresolved condition rather than an unsupported pass.
- Specify the useful return. Name the evaluation’s result form and the conclusion it can support. A floor answer identifies sufficiency or the first needed repair; an improvement answer also describes the proposed change, expected gain, protected trade-offs and closure test. State evaluator conditions only when they change the question or admissibility of the answer.
When several contributions are needed, retain what their available evaluations establish and ask about the necessary connection still unanswered. A good explanation, a supported source claim and a correct constituent operation can all remain valid while their combined use is unestablished. Evaluate that connection at its own object and use; unlike scores do not form a quality score for the whole.
Write the request in ordinary language with these bindings recoverable, as in section 5. The local names and schemas below specify their exact meanings when the question is represented as a QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame and QualityEvaluationUseDeclaration. Reuse the selected evaluation’s adequate descriptions and defaults. Add an intended evaluator’s identity or a dated-Work account only when the receiving question requires it.
Stop framing when the question and expected answer are sufficiently determined for the intended evaluation. If an existing request already supplies them, perform the direct evaluation and inspect whether its grounds support the consuming conclusion. A separate frame is useful when it resolves missing or disputed bindings; it does not improve an already adequate answer merely by restating them.
E.22:4.1 - Local names and kind settlement
E.22 frames the question. It does not evaluate the object. evaluationPatternLocator identifies the FPF pattern description containing the evaluation predicate or constraint; an optional semanticEvaluationMethodRef names the separately identified U.Method used for that evaluation. A characteristic-space specification, Q-Bundle description, rubric description, review-profile description, evidence-basis description, and result-form description constrain or describe that evaluation. None of those specifications performs the evaluation or substitutes for the subject assertion or semantic Method. For example, E.21, E.9.DA, or E.2.DA may supply the predicate for evaluating one FPF object, while A.19.ECS and C.25 supply supporting quality-model descriptions. E.19 instead defines an admission or refresh review-gate and findings profile. Use E.19 as evaluationPatternLocator only when its review result is itself the object under evaluation; otherwise its later gate check remains distinct from the quality evaluation.
A below-floor value, finding, improvement aim, or need for evaluation is not by itself an actual Problem. If the consuming use relies on an actual Problem, cite one current C.22.PFR ProblematicForRelation occurrence with its direct participants and temporal identity; the frame, evaluation, result, and evidence may support a claim about it but neither create nor split it.
The framing episteme, evaluation method, descriptions used by that method, any question-changing evaluator condition, dated evaluation Work, actual operation application, evidence use, and result occupy different positions. QualityEvaluationUseDeclaration keeps the applicable evaluation bindings together without turning a plan, declaration, or named candidate into a current performer or occurrence.
The remaining local support names ending in @Context are compatibility and retrieval names only. The suffix supplies no context entity, scope, participant, relation, or identity component; every episteme follows C.2.1 identity, every set is identified by its stated extensional rule, and every neighboring Work, decision, evidence, viewpoint, grounding, or result relation remains under its direct governor.
| Local name | Kind and use in this pattern |
|---|---|
QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame | U.Episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the exact object version under evaluation; its ClaimGraph carries the requested quality-evaluation question about that version and its exact use bindings. |
QualityEvaluationUseDeclaration | U.Episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the same object version. It describes how evaluation of that version is intended to be performed and interpreted, referring separately to the evaluation pattern, optional semantic Method, selected characteristic space, predicate and any comparator, ClaimScope, quality-model descriptions, expected evidence basis, result form, and qualification window. It may state an evaluator eligibility, independence, capability, or planned condition when that condition changes the question or admissibility of the result; it may name an intended evaluator only when that identity is part of the question. It contains no actual performer, assignment, or Work occurrence. |
ObjectVersionUnderQualityEvaluation | Exact U.Entity version being evaluated, paired with its exact U.Kind. |
EvaluationCharacteristicSpaceSelection | One exact U.CharacteristicSpace selected for this evaluation use. Its specification description is a separate episteme and does not become the space. |
EvaluationCriterionSelection | The exact by-value CharacteristicSpacePredicate, exact admitted ComparatorSpecRef, or both, required by the governing evaluation pattern and, when declared, its separately identified semantic evaluation Method. At least one is present. |
EvaluationClaimScope | One exact set-valued U.ClaimScope governing the evaluation claim. It is not a context label, selected structure, window, or evidence set. |
QualityEvaluationResultConsumingUse | The exact directly governed intended-work, dated-work, or decision object that is expected to consume the evaluation result, paired with its exact kind and use description. It does not authorize or perform that use. |
QualityEvaluationPurposeSelection | Requested evaluation purpose or distinguishable combination of purposes. |
DeclaredQualityFloor | Minimum acceptable coordinate or status floor when the frame declares a floor claim. |
DesiredImprovementAim | Requested substantive change beyond the floor when improvement beyond the floor is requested. |
ExpectedEvaluationEvidenceBasis@Context | U.Episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the exact object version under evaluation. It describes expected evidence-use positions and the missingness rule for the exact method, space, criterion, scope, and qualification window. It can be identified before a use declaration cites it and is not the evidence values later found. |
TradeoffProtectionSet@Context | A local U.Set value whose members are exact characteristic or coordinate references paired with their kinds. Its identity is extensional for the exact question-frame edition, not for a context label. |
EvaluationQualificationWindow | Edition, source-currentness, comparison-set, time, or declared-use window in which the requested result is intended to be current. The actual evaluation application later binds its exact point or interval. |
ExpectedQualityEvaluationResultFormDescription | U.Episteme describing the result-row form declared by the governing evaluation pattern. It is not an actual result. |
QualityReviewFindingRow | Actionable evaluation finding that identifies the observed issue, affected evaluation property, correction direction, and closure test. |
CandidateImprovementProposalRow@Context | E.22 proposal episteme with an exact correction target, expected substantive evaluation effect, trade-offs, kind-restoration disposition, outside-claim return when needed, and closure test. |
CandidateImprovementOutsideClaimReference@Context | Bounded local ClaimGraph node form inside one proposal row. It identifies the outside governed value, relation signature, or boundary description and the exact FPF pattern identity that governs the return. It is not an episteme, relation, or independently referenceable entity. |
KindRestorationCheck | Conditionally present check when a changed FPF-governed expression can alter the object, kind, relation, slot or use position, claim kind, admissible use, or scope. |
CandidateImprovementProposalPortfolio@Context | A local U.Set value whose members are CandidateImprovementProposalRow@Context epistemes for one question frame. Membership, not a document serialization, determines the portfolio. |
ImprovementFollowUpHypothesis@Context | U.Episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the exact object version expected to change. It claims that one named next operation or method application is expected to address one finding and produce a stated evaluation effect under a stated test condition. A stop disposition, return, selected plan, performed Work, or actual Transformation is not such a hypothesis. |
QualityEvaluationUseDeclaration <: U.Episteme:
entityOfConcernRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the exact object version under evaluation
entityOfConcernKindRef: U.KindRef, referencing the exact kind of that object version
claimGraph: U.ClaimGraph by value
referenceScheme: U.ReferenceScheme by value
editionId
evaluatorConditionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing an eligibility, independence, capability, or planned condition only when it changes the evaluation question or admissibility of the result
intendedEvaluatorSystemRef?: U.EntityRef, referencing one admitted U.System only when that exact identity is itself part of the declared question; it asserts neither assignment nor performance
evaluationPatternLocator: U.EntityRef, locating the exact FPF pattern description that contains the defining or constraining ClaimGraph
semanticEvaluationMethodRef?: U.MethodRef, referencing the separately identified U.Method used for the evaluation
selectedEvaluationCharacteristicSpaceRef: U.EntityRef, referencing one exact U.CharacteristicSpace
selectedEvaluationPredicate?: CharacteristicSpacePredicate by value
selectedComparatorSpecRef?: ComparatorSpecRef
evaluationClaimScopeRef: U.EntityRef, referencing one exact U.ClaimScope
evaluationQualificationWindowDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one EvaluationQualificationWindow description
evaluationCharacteristicSpaceSpecDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one A.19.ECS specification description
evaluationQBundleDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one C.25 Q-Bundle description
evaluationRubricDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one evaluation-rubric description
evaluationReviewProfileDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one evaluation-review-profile description
expectedEvaluationEvidenceBasisRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one ExpectedEvaluationEvidenceBasis@Context
expectedEvaluationResultFormDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one ExpectedQualityEvaluationResultFormDescription
ExpectedEvaluationEvidenceBasis@Context <: U.Episteme:
entityOfConcernRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the exact object version whose evaluation needs the expected evidence
entityOfConcernKindRef: U.KindRef, referencing the exact kind of that object version
claimGraph: U.ClaimGraph by value
referenceScheme: U.ReferenceScheme by value
editionId
evaluationPatternLocator: U.EntityRef, locating the same exact FPF evaluation pattern description
selectedEvaluationCharacteristicSpaceRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the same exact U.CharacteristicSpace
selectedEvaluationPredicate?: CharacteristicSpacePredicate by value
selectedComparatorSpecRef?: ComparatorSpecRef
evaluationClaimScopeRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the same exact U.ClaimScope
expectedEvidencePositionDescriptionRefs[1..*]: U.EpistemeRef, each referencing one evidence-position description
expectedEvidenceRelationKindRefs[1..*]: U.KindRef, each referencing one expected evidence-relation kind
missingEvidenceDispositionRuleRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one exact episteme that states the missing-evidence disposition rule under its subject pattern
qualificationWindowDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one EvaluationQualificationWindow description
Every field above with a *Ref suffix stores the stated A.6.5 RefKind; resolving it yields the referent kind named after referencing. The use declaration and expected evidence basis carry the same exact object version, governing evaluation pattern, selected characteristic space, criterion binding, ClaimScope, and qualification window. The expected basis does not point back to the declaration: it can be constituted from those exact values, expected evidence positions and relation kinds, and missingness rule; the declaration is then constituted with a reference to that completed basis. This preserves the acyclic construction.
At least one of selectedEvaluationPredicate and selectedComparatorSpecRef is present; both may be present. A label such as review, quality, or current context supplies neither. A.19 defines the predicate by value. Use A.19.CPM or the exact direct consumer rule for comparator admission; identify any actual comparison application separately. Selecting the predicate or comparator does not by itself establish the evaluation scope, evidence, time, Work, or result.
evaluatorConditionRef states only a condition that changes the evaluation question or admissibility of its result. intendedEvaluatorSystemRef is present only when the declared question depends on that exact intended System; neither field establishes assignment or performance. The actual evaluator System, every obtaining assignment, and dated evaluation Work belong to the separately identified evaluation application or result account. Keep any local evaluator system-role classification separate and route unresolved role wording through E.10.ROLE. evaluationPatternLocator locates the pattern that defines or constrains the evaluation; it is not the Method, performer, Work, or result. Claim Method or MethodDescription identity only after A.3.1 and A.3.2 admit it. Characteristic-space, Q-Bundle, rubric, profile, evidence-basis, and result-form references identify separate descriptions.
None of these declaration fields is dated evaluation Work or an evaluation result. A pre-evaluation frame contains no actual-Work identifiers. An ordinary result that asserts no actual Work needs none. If a compact projection does assert dated evaluation Work, recover every exact actual performer through A.13 and follow A.15.1 for independent Work admission; performer, Method, time, containing System, Work identity, and the result relation remain recoverable. Add assignment and F.6 refs only when the projection or receiving use expressly represents precise assignment-bound attribution; missing or failed F.6 leaves the Work intact. Keep any durable result episteme, evidence use, provenance, currentness, viewpoint, grounding, and Work-to-result or decision-use relation under their own patterns. A frame, declaration, description, assignment, dashboard, or carrier establishes none of them.
Two carriers may publish the same edition of either episteme. A QualityEvaluationUseDeclaration changes edition when its object version, claim graph, reference scheme, question-changing evaluator condition or intended-evaluator identity, evaluation pattern, semantic Method, selected characteristic space, predicate and comparator, ClaimScope, qualification window, quality-model descriptions, expected evidence-basis edition, or result-form description changes. Replacing one qualified actual evaluator with another does not change the declaration unless the declared condition or claim changes. An ExpectedEvaluationEvidenceBasis@Context changes edition when its object version, claim graph, reference scheme, evaluation pattern, selected space, predicate and comparator, ClaimScope, expected evidence positions or relation kinds, missingness rule, or qualification window changes. Carrier, context label, viewpoint, grounding record, or support serialization alone changes neither episteme. TradeoffProtectionSet@Context and CandidateImprovementProposalPortfolio@Context are set values, not records; an episteme may describe or publish either set without becoming the set.
E.22:4.2 - Quality evaluation purposes
| Purpose value | Use when | Expected result |
|---|---|---|
floorEvaluation | The question is whether the object reaches a declared floor. | Values below floor, first repair, architecture hold, refresh, new-frame assignment, or admissible stop. |
exceptionalImprovementEvaluation | The floor is reached and the requester wants non-dominated improvement toward exceptional expression. | Per-coordinate proposal or no-candidate disposition. |
paretoTradeoffEvaluation | A candidate change may improve some values while worsening protected qualities. | Trade-off account and non-dominated comparison. |
candidateImprovementProposalEvaluation | The requester needs candidate-change proposals before changing the object or generating variants. | Proposal row or bounded proposal portfolio with an expected effect on the later evaluation result. |
openQuestionDiscoveryEvaluation | The requester wants important unasked questions surfaced. | Question classified as existing-coordinate issue, candidate future coordinate, or outside-evaluation issue. |
absorptionEvaluation | Returned findings or suggestions have been applied or rejected. | Quality-impact account over the changed object. |
Purposes can be combined, but the result keeps them distinguishable. A floor result does not answer exceptional improvement. Absorption count does not establish a changed evaluation result. A proposal is not a selected work item.
E.22:4.3 - Question frame
Use the construction in section 4.0 to settle the requested judgement before expressing these bindings. The schema preserves that question for its declared use.
An improvement aim is not a command to make every coordinate exceptional. A 5 is assigned only by the named evaluation after the changed object earns it. The frame may ask for substantive non-dominated proposals that could move named coordinates toward exceptional expression, while admitting no proposal or stay at current value when every plausible change would add apparatus, proof prose, boundary catalogues, or process evidence while damaging protected qualities. That no-proposal result needs checked review locations and evidence-basis references; it is not a cheap refusal to improve.
QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame <: U.Episteme:
entityOfConcernRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the exact object version under evaluation
entityOfConcernKindRef: U.KindRef, referencing the exact kind of that object version
claimGraph: U.ClaimGraph by value
referenceScheme: U.ReferenceScheme by value
editionId
qualityEvaluationUseDeclarationRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one QualityEvaluationUseDeclaration about the same object version
selectedEvaluationCharacteristicSpaceRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the same exact U.CharacteristicSpace
selectedEvaluationPredicate?: CharacteristicSpacePredicate by value
selectedComparatorSpecRef?: ComparatorSpecRef
evaluationClaimScopeRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the same exact U.ClaimScope
resultConsumingUseRef: U.EntityRef, referencing one exact directly governed intended-work, dated-work, or decision object
resultConsumingUseKindRef: U.KindRef, referencing its exact kind
resultConsumingUseDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, describing how that work or decision will use the evaluation result
evaluationPurposeSelection: QualityEvaluationPurposeSelectionValue
declaredQualityFloorDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one declared-quality-floor description
desiredImprovementAimDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one desired-improvement-aim description
tradeoffProtectionSet: TradeoffProtectionSet@Context by value
evaluationQualificationWindowDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one EvaluationQualificationWindow description
nonUseBoundaryDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing a non-use-boundary description only when the grounded condition in CC-E22-6 holds
The frame’s exact object version, characteristic space, predicate/comparator binding, ClaimScope, and qualification window equal those of its use declaration and expected evidence basis. These bindings make the question replayable; they do not reidentify the space, predicate, comparator, scope, method, or consuming object. A changed binding creates a changed frame edition and requires a newly evaluated result.
resultConsumingUseRef is not a generic use placeholder. Before occurrence it may resolve to one A.15.2 U.WorkPlan that names the particular intended Work, or to the exact decision question or decision-governing object under its direct pattern. It may resolve to U.Work only when that dated Work already obtains under A.15.1. The frame neither creates the consuming Work or decision nor authorizes it.
The shortest floor frame names the object version, one QualityEvaluationUseDeclaration, the exact selected characteristic space, applicable predicate and/or comparator, ClaimScope, result-consuming work or decision, purpose floorEvaluation, and the declared floor. The declaration may cite defaults supplied by the governing evaluation pattern for its quality-model descriptions, evidence basis, result form, and qualification window, but defaults do not replace the exact selected space, criterion, scope, or consumer. If the question depends on another edition, source state, comparison set, time window, or declared use, state that window explicitly. For one FPF pattern version under E.21, compactness never permits omitted coordinates, missing ShortRationale, absent PrecisionRestorationProfile, scope narrowing, or a blocker-only substitute result.
Connect the question, grounds and supported conclusion. State what the evaluation must establish about the object for the declared consuming use. In the expected evidence basis, identify the judgement that connects the selected criterion to the relevant content: for example, whether a Method’s conditions permit the proposed action, whether a computation yields the stated result, or whether a source supports the claim made from it. A direct presence or identity check is sufficient when presence or identity is the property being asked about.
When receiving the result, read its rationale and observations for that connection. Determine whether they support the requested conclusion under the declared criterion, scope and qualification. Retain supported findings and identify the exact missing judgement or inference before claiming more. Obtain that answer through the applicable evaluation, reusing current supported parts and keeping the answer in its existing result. Apply the same connection to an already-scoped direct evaluation; no new QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame is needed.
These instructions use the frame’s existing claimGraph, the declaration’s expectedEvaluationEvidenceBasisRef and the declared consuming use. The expected evidence basis describes what must be answered; the obtained grounds belong in the evaluation result.
The frame does not authorize post-hoc scope replacement. If the requested floor is landing-input, corpus-facing, Stable, release, external-review, or another stated use, the evaluator measures that use. If a different use becomes interesting, open a new QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame; do not report the current request as passed under an easier scope.
The frame and declaration state the evaluation’s intended use. An intended evaluator or planned condition makes neither a current assignment nor Work obtain. When dated evaluation Work is asserted, recover the exact evaluator through A.13 and let A.15.1 independently admit the Work; keep evidence use, typed result binding or direct result relation, and optional result episteme separate. Add F.6 only when the evaluation account expressly consumes precise assignment-bound attribution. An expected result-form description is not the result, and the consuming work or decision does not become current merely because the frame names it.
E.22:4.4 - Finding and proposal rows
An actionable finding first identifies where an issue was observed, which exact entity would change, the affected evaluation characteristic or coordinate, the current evaluation result for that characteristic or coordinate when known, the proposed correction, and the closure test. A proposal adds a typed expected evaluation effect, protected trade-offs, and any outside claim together with the subject-pattern locator needed to check that claim independently.
CandidateImprovementProposalRow@Context <: U.Episteme:
entityOfConcernRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the exact object version under improvement
entityOfConcernKindRef: U.KindRef, referencing the exact kind of that object version
claimGraph: U.ClaimGraph by value
referenceScheme: U.ReferenceScheme by value
editionId
qualityEvaluationQuestionFrameRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame about the same object version
evaluationClaimScopeRef: U.EntityRef, referencing that frame's exact U.ClaimScope
reviewLocationDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one description of the observed location in the reviewed object
correctionTargetRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the exact entity proposed to change
correctionTargetKindRef: U.KindRef, referencing the exact kind of the correction target
affectedEvaluationCharacteristicOrCoordinateRef: U.EntityRef, referencing one governed characteristic or evaluation coordinate
affectedEvaluationCharacteristicOrCoordinateKindRef: U.KindRef, referencing its exact kind
currentAffectedEvaluationResultRef?: U.EntityRef, referencing the current result value for that characteristic or coordinate
currentAffectedEvaluationResultKindRef?: U.KindRef, referencing the exact kind of that result value
expectedSubstantiveEvaluationEffect: ProposalEvaluationEffectValue
proposedCorrectionDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one correction description
kindRestorationCheckDisposition: ProposalKindRestorationCheckDispositionValue
kindRestorationCheckRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one KindRestorationCheck result
expectedTradeoffRefs[]: U.EpistemeRef, each referencing one expected-trade-off description
outsideClaimReferences[]?: CandidateImprovementOutsideClaimReference@Context by value
closureTestRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one closure-test description
CandidateImprovementOutsideClaimReference@Context in CandidateImprovementProposalRow@Context.claimGraph:
outsideClaimOrBoundaryDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one description of the outside claim or boundary
outsideValueRef?: U.EntityRef, referencing the exact outside governed value
outsideValueKindRef?: U.KindRef, referencing the exact kind of that outside value
outsideRelationSignatureRef?: U.EntityRef, referencing the exact U.Signature of the outside relation
subjectPatternLocator: U.EntityRef, locating the exact FPF subject-pattern description; the evaluation claim separately cites the defining ClaimGraph
reconsiderationConditionDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one description of the condition that activates renewed use of that subject pattern
ImprovementFollowUpHypothesis@Context <: U.Episteme:
entityOfConcernRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the exact object version expected to change
entityOfConcernKindRef: U.KindRef, referencing the exact kind of that object version
claimGraph: U.ClaimGraph by value
referenceScheme: U.ReferenceScheme by value
editionId
qualityEvaluationQuestionFrameRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame about the same object version
evaluationClaimScopeRef: U.EntityRef, referencing that frame's exact U.ClaimScope
qualityReviewFindingDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one episteme that describes the exact QualityReviewFindingRow
proposedNextOperationDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one operation description
proposedNextMethodRef?: U.MethodRef, referencing one U.Method
expectedEvaluationEffectDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one expected-evaluation-effect description
testConditionDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one test-condition description
Exactly one of proposedNextOperationDescriptionRef and proposedNextMethodRef is present. The question frame, proposal row, and follow-up hypothesis preserve the same exact object-version EntityOfConcern and ClaimScope unless a proposal explicitly opens a new frame for a different version or scope. QualityEvaluationQuestionFrame changes edition when the object version, use declaration, selected space, predicate/comparator binding, ClaimScope, consuming work or decision, purpose, floor or aim, trade-off set, qualification window, non-use boundary, claim graph, or reference scheme changes. A proposal row changes edition when its frame, ClaimScope, correction target, affected evaluation coordinate, current result reference, proposed correction, expected effect, trade-offs, outside-claim nodes, closure test, claim graph, or reference scheme changes. A follow-up hypothesis changes edition when its frame, ClaimScope, finding description, proposed operation or method, expected effect, test condition, claim graph, or reference scheme changes. A context label, carrier, viewpoint, grounding record, or serialization change alone changes none of these epistemes.
ProposalEvaluationEffectValue is the closed local value set repairFloor | raiseTowardExceptional | preventProtectedQualityLoss | classifyOutsideEvaluation | preserveCurrentValue. It identifies the coarse substantive evaluation effect expected from this proposal. It does not duplicate the coordinate-qualified prediction later carried by E.23 ExpectedEvaluationResultChange@Context and does not assert an actual changed result.
ProposalKindRestorationCheckDispositionValue is triggered | notTriggered | ordinaryProse | alreadySatisfied | blocker. The triggered and blocker states include kindRestorationCheckRef; the other values leave it absent. Current affected-evaluation result ref and kind are both present or both absent; when present, the exact result resolves through the direct evaluation pattern’s typed result relation or A.6.1 application binding, and any durable result episteme remains separately governed. The proposal row neither produces nor reidentifies that result. The exact kind recovers whether the named evaluation returned a scale value, status, or another admitted result for that characteristic or coordinate. Outside value ref and kind are paired, and outsideRelationSignatureRef is present when the outside value is a relation. CandidateImprovementOutsideClaimReference@Context is a bounded local ClaimGraph node form, not a U-kind, episteme, relation, or relation-reference episteme. It is constructed inside one proposal row without a back-reference to that row; its node identity is determined by the containing proposal edition and ClaimGraph position.
reviewLocationDescriptionRef describes where the issue was observed in the reviewed object. correctionTargetRef identifies the exact entity that would change. They are not interchangeable positions. The row is a faithful typed proposal form of QualityReviewFindingRow and one possible member of a CandidateImprovementProposalPortfolio@Context set. It remains a proposal episteme, not a selected repair, plan, work occurrence, actual Transformation, result binding, or proof of improvement.
For wording, naming, and precision-restoration proposals, proposedCorrectionDescriptionRef states the correction and its intended content effect. Apply F.19 for the ordinary repair and local revalidation. When the changed FPF-governed expression can alter meaning, KindRestorationCheck states the live object, kind, relation, slot or use position, claim kind, admissible use, and scope before and after the change. If the proposed repair cannot preserve those values and no accepted decision justifies changing them, the row remains blocking.
E.22:4.5 - Absorption impact values
| Absorption impact | Meaning |
|---|---|
coordinateImproved | A named coordinate or status has stronger content evidence after the change. |
floorOnlyClosure | A below-floor defect was repaired enough for the floor but not exceptional expression. |
unchangedBecauseAlreadySatisfied | The suggestion was already satisfied by value, with the exact review locations and the evaluation property they already satisfy named by value. |
tradeoffIntroduced | A repair raised one property and damaged another. |
qualityLossDetected | The applied or proposed change lowers a value or protected quality. |
outsideObjectUnderImprovementEvaluation | The suggestion belongs under another exact evaluation or pattern. |
notAdmissibleForDeclaredUse | The suggestion is rejected for the declared purpose and boundary. |
The absorption result states the changed evaluation result under the object-under-improvement evaluation, not a count of accepted rows.
E.22:4.6 - OEE and NQD proposal portfolios
When the object is a candidate, archive or front member, selected set, parity report, refresh report, or declared transformation result, use E.22 to frame the quality question and return proposal rows. Use C.17 for candidate characteristics, C.18 for archive and front relations, C.19 for pool policy, G.5 for selected-set result declaration, G.9 for parity, and G.11 for currentness and refresh. When audience availability is current, use E.17 for a source-backed publication face and return to source and E.24.PUB for the publication occurrence, form, carrier, audience, bounded use, and availability.