F.9:7 - Evidence about relation and use
Evidence must answer the question it actually bears on:
| Evidence question | What the evidence may support | What it cannot establish |
|---|---|---|
| Do the endpoint meanings satisfy the fixed profile? | the claim that the Bridge obtains, is false, or remains unresolved | suitability for an unnamed use |
Does the Bridge suit <u,d,r,t>? | affirmative or negative polarity of the exact C.2.1 bounded-use claim | authorization or performance of the use |
| May the reader rely on that claim now? | an A.10 local RelianceDisposition; when an actual named assurance claim is current, its B.3 AssuranceResult for the same bounded use | the Bridge occurrence, legal permission, or a receiving occurrence |
CL may summarize evidence strength for a stated correspondence: 0 contradicted, 1 weakly comparable, 2 bounded support with explicit counterexamples, and 3 matched stated invariants with no current material counterexample. It is optional and never serves as a use threshold. A CL=3 label does not make a type-structure use suitable; the separate claim must still name the rule and tolerance, and reliance must still pass under A.10 or B.3.
Observed losses, unit differences, counterexamples, and invariant checks belong in the evidence path or card. The proposed use’s permitted-loss tolerance belongs in its ClaimGraph. A loss observation can change without reidentifying either the fixed Bridge or the bounded-use claim; it may instead reopen the claim’s polarity or the current reliance disposition.