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.