LDR.4:5.2 - First use exposes work that agreement did not perform

On the first attempt, the checklist draws attention to a test from C6 cited in the C7 calculation package. The engineer can state the mismatch but needs help judging it. A qualified colleague identifies a changed parameter whose effect the old test did not cover. Under the stipulated review rule, applicability to C7 is unsupported.

The engineer returns the gap to the specialist; the reviewer receives the unresolved claim and withholds the dependent conclusion. The twenty-minute handover did not promise a new calculation within that interval. The first attempt has exposed the next necessary work but has not completed the intended reviewed contribution.

The specialist estimates the correction and its checking. The lead obtains a feasible allocation with the people whose work would move, and the reviewer accepts a later receiving window. If those conditions cannot be arranged, the dependent release waits. In the successful continuation stipulated here, the specialist supplies the C7 calculation and grounds. The engineer completes the assisted handover; the reviewer examines the result and makes the review decision.

This is the first completed contribution for this use. The case establishes no measured effect of the checklist or independent mastery by the engineer. It illustrates why preparation, authority, performance and evidence are separate results that must connect.