F.16:5 - The one-page Worked-Example Canvas

Each item is a thought the reader needs, not a mandatory form field.

1. Title, working situation, and gain. Name the situation in ordinary language and say what practical error or decision the example resolves.

2. Worked claim. State one bounded claim. Example: “June availability is evaluated from observations of the defined service-delivery Work, not from the approved runbook.”

3. Actual subjects. List only the Systems, Methods, descriptions, delivery and evaluation Work occurrences, promise-content claims, characteristics, observations, values, operation applications, results, status uses, local system-role kinds, assignments, or other values needed by the claim.

4. Direct pattern route. Beside each substantive claim, cite the pattern that defines, constrains, or tests the value or relation used by the claim. This prevents one vague word or generic Bridge from taking over several relation families.

5. Exact source basis. Cite the source and edition and, where local wording matters, the expression, claim, and effective scheme. Add an F.17 cell only if repeated use needs a durable address.

6. Obtaining relations. For each relation, name its exact participants, direction, basis, and loss. Use F.9 only for a real semantic relation between distinct local meanings. Use the defining or testing pattern for MethodDescription membership, enactment, performed Work, measurement, evidence, fulfilment, kind, assignment, publication, transformation, and any load-bearing indicator relation. If proxy wording names no supported relation, use C.16.P and stop at A.6.RCD missing-governor.

7. Evidence, result, and limits. Show the independently established direct relations by which observations or sources support the claim. A.10 describes that path and classifies reliance on it for the bounded use; its fields must supply the evidence required by the claim and its direct rule. When evaluation is part of the case, show the evaluation Work, enacted Method, exact application and result binding, declared result scale, and any separate F.10 status or optional C.2.1 verdict episteme. Use B.3 only for an actual named assurance claim. State what remains outside the conclusion.

8. Optional comparison surface. If two or more local meanings or source claims are hard to compare in prose, add one compact F.7 table. State the receiving-use conclusion separately. Omit the table when it adds ceremony but no clarity.

9. Micro-narrative and checks. Walk briefly from the working situation through the actual relations to the result. End with the few direct subject checks that let the reader replay the claim and one non-use boundary. Add F.15 only when a finite naming slice needs its static or regression checks.

Memory rule. If the case cannot fit on one page or slide, reduce it to one claim or split it into linked examples. Do not delete the evidence or relation that makes the claim intelligible merely to preserve the page count.