G.5:5 - Archetypal Grounding

Tell (archetype). The selector-bearing System must choose among rival families without lying about measurement admissibility, crossings, or evidence. The result Episteme keeps the comparison basis, audit pins, and refresh conditions recoverable. When the current result instead includes several already identified members together, the same result-content boundary must not disguise that all-member meaning as retained alternatives.

Show 1 (multi-Tradition dispatch; unordered shortlist). A CG-Frame includes multiple decision-theoretic families with different admissibility assumptions. Evidence for some CHR traits is incomplete. System registers families (S1), then runs Select (S3) on a pinned TaskSignatureRef. Eligibility is tri-state; some families receive abstain due to missing minimal-evidence pins. Among remaining candidates, only a partial order is admissible, so the selector emits one Shortlist with explicit basisPins instead of inventing one scalar winner. No shadow acceptance logic appears in the selector; it consumes pinned acceptance and admissibility records.

Show 2 (specialist handoff; ranked result). A bounded-specialization comparison keeps two method families live under a pinned admissible comparator that orders them, and downstream handoff needs that ordering. Declare one RankedShortlist with that ordering and comparator among its basis pins, ShortlistId when public identity is needed, and handoff-facing nextUse. If no admissible comparator supplies an order, retain an unordered Shortlist; the request for a ranked handoff does not establish one.

Show 3 (no admissible survivor; abstain or escalation). In this frame, one admissibility gate and one minimal-evidence gate fail at the same time. The truthful G.5 result is one abstain or escalation result that names the blocking pins and the next downstream use boundary, not one empty shortlist that leaves downstream users unsure whether selection silently failed or admissibly stopped.

Show 4 (complementary framework editions; unordered joint use). A training cohort needs FPF@C, Domain@D, and Local@L together. The editions are already identified under their own edition rules; they are not Method candidates or registry rows. An accepted cohort decision supplies the exact members and basis. G.5-6 DeclareSetResult emits one unordered JointUseSet with one keyed entry per edition, the named cohort-review use, inclusion conditions, and sufficient top-level basis pins. Direct dependencies and pairwise compatibility claims remain with E.4.PFR; publication and access remain with E.17/E.24.PUB and the applicable access-carrier pattern. The G.5 result declares membership but does not perform the choice, make those neighboring claims obtain, or create a contribution relation.

Show 5 (support-sensitive Method eligibility).

Keep the exact admitted Methods, row editions, and grouping basis from §0.5. In a gated variant, the matching G.4 task map makes AC_InputConditionGate-E1 from G.4 §5 applicable to ThresholdTrendReviewMethod-E2. Consume that clause’s value and threshold rather than define either in G.5. For the two-condition case there, the returned fail excludes that row from the assurance-gated set. Replacing its joint probability with minimum would wrongly retain it. An otherwise admissible row stays in the set under its own declared eligibility basis; if none survives, return the existing abstain or escalation outcome.

If the dependence model is missing, use the clause’s unknown branch rather than pass by a high F. In the ordinary, non-assurance question of §0.5, both grounded rows still form the unordered Shortlist. A formal proof, a limited complementary study, and an overlapping contrary result can remain separate support with their limitations; neither weak additional evidence nor the absence of an unjustified common score automatically removes a Method. A defeated necessary premise still changes the eligibility that actually relies on it.

Show 6 (one calibrated correspondence, two receiving uses).

Use G.7 §4.5’s VehicleTransportOrder row from C.3.3 to select among independently admitted Methods for a transport review. The task’s applicability comparison uses only the preserved transport/passenger order and explicitly ignores propulsion. When receiving admissibility, fresh target classification of the subject vehicles, the bounded comparison conditions and matching reliance pass, that row can support Method eligibility under the task’s other rules. Keep those premises with the result.

For a second task that requires battery-health evidence, the same CL^k=2 row loses the necessary EV distinction and cannot support that criterion. Return the missing battery premise through the existing unknown/abstain or evidence-request branch. Raising a scalar summary or citing a waiver does not restore that distinction. G.7 reports the correspondence; the exact TaskSignature and receiving rules decide each selection use.