CC-E22-1 | Name the exact object version, selected CharacteristicSpace, exact predicate and/or admitted comparator, one U.ClaimScope, and the exact work or decision that will consume the result. |
CC-E22-2 | State purpose, declared floor or improvement aim, protected trade-offs, qualification window, and expected result form. |
CC-E22-3 | Keep the object-under-improvement evaluation as the source of values and the coordinate set to be evaluated. A description, dashboard, or frame cannot substitute for the selected space, predicate/comparator, actual evaluation, or result. |
CC-E22-4 | Represent actionable returned work as typed finding or CandidateImprovementProposalRow@Context values with expected substantive evaluation effect, closure test, and the conditionally present KindRestorationCheck. An outside claim cites its subject pattern; E.22 frames the improvement question and does not restate that ontology. |
CC-E22-5 | For absorption, report quality impact on the changed object, not only applied and not-applied dispositions. |
CC-E22-6 | State a compact declarative non-use boundary only when an independently grounded reading by a plausible intended reader would turn the result into a different claim or authority. Keep the result on the evaluation question and name only the specific outside claim plus the pattern that defines or constrains it when one is needed; precision-restoration or phrase-apparatus issues belong to the named evaluation profile and F.19, not to a local boundary catalogue. |
CC-E22-7 | State what became worse when a proposed or applied improvement raises visible values. |
CC-E22-8 | Use E.23 for repeated improvement after one framed evaluation returns findings or proposals. |
CC-E22-8a | Do not frame 5, all-5, or 5-defensible as the work target. Frame below-floor repair separately from optional exceptional-improvement proposals. The optional proposal target is substantive content change, not score proof; allow checked no proposal or stay at current value only when further change would be dominated by apparatus growth, proof theatre, or protected-quality loss. |
CC-E22-9 | Preserve the object-under-improvement evaluation’s required scope, evidence basis, complete coordinate set, rationales, and result form. For an E.21 result, include its compact PrecisionRestorationProfile under E.21:4.3a; checked evidence and coordinate-specific payloads retain their governing requirements. |
CC-E22-10 | Keep the question frame separate from actual evaluation. An evaluator condition appears in the use declaration only when it changes the question or result admissibility; an intended evaluator identity appears only when identity is itself declared. For actual dated Work, recover the evaluator through A.13 and admit the Work independently through A.15.1. Assignment occurrence and F.6 refs are optional and appear only when the record or receiving use expressly represents precise assignment-bound attribution; their absence or failure does not revoke Work. Keep the application, result relation, result episteme, pattern locator, Method, any independently admitted method description, quality model, evidence-basis and result-form descriptions, evidence use, and result-consuming work or decision distinct. |
CC-E22-11 | A low value, finding, failed floor, or improvement aim does not establish an actual Problem. Any actual Problem relied on by the consuming use resolves to one current C.22.PFR occurrence with its direct participants and temporal identity. |