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.