F.4:7.2 - Reviewer System Role and Review Report
ReviewerSystemRoleKindDescription may describe the kind currently named ReviewerSystemRole. An admitted system counts when it compares the named pattern claims with each selected scale in the applicable review situation and returns the named reasoned judgment with the assessed values or defects. A person, team, or review service satisfying both conditions can be a member; a review report, or a system that merely comments without applying the scales, is a relevant non-member. PatternReview-2026-Reviewer-KindSignature-v2 states the current condition. The PatternReview source locates that definition; it does not identify the kind. The same kind continues only while the candidate range and substantive-review distinction continue under aligned editions. A.6.F is used only to unpack still-ambiguous function wording and establishes neither claim. If a predicate is missing, record the A.6.RCD missing-governor; if case facts are missing, record the corresponding unresolved result. This condition can be checked without asserting that any review appointment or dated review Work already exists.
Alice’s classification under that kind, any review appointment she holds, any dated review Work she performs, and any report used as evidence remain four separate claims. This compact description names none of their occurrence identities.
Use:
- A.2 with C.3 for the local kind and direct classification;
- F.4 for the description episteme;
- A.2.1 when a particular review assignment must be identified;
- A.13 followed by independent A.15.1 admission when a particular dated review Work occurrence is identified, and F.6 afterward when the claim also identifies the assignment under which that Work was performed; and
- A.10, B.3, G.6, or another direct relation for the report’s evidence or assurance use.
The report is not a system-role holder and does not acquire an “evidence role.”