ME.12:5 - Archetypal Grounding - Representation Difficulty in SSFD

The SSFD workplace evidence reports that Project 32 had difficulty representing the relation between a closed-loop sensor and controller. This is a useful coherence trigger because the difficulty may concern Method semantics, a MethodDescription claim, a selected representation, support material, or a situation-specific applicability boundary.

The report does not by itself identify which maintained result owns the defect. First recover the exact receiving action, Method source, direct governed result and claim, applicable evidence/reliance layer, receiving result, exposure and omission, disposition, and return.

If the evidence concerns only one sensor-controller representation, ME.9 is not invoked: inspect C.37 and the direct FPF representation governor. If several unlike Method-related actions are current, require a complete ME.9 profile with one complete C.37 claim group for each action and an explicit cross-use result for shared source, correspondences, conflicting omissions, edition relations, decisions to keep representations separate, and conditions for reconsidering several selections.

If the facts locate a failed exposure claim, return the owning row and only the cross-use relations that depended on it; if they locate a construction or description contradiction, return it to ME.7 or ME.8. If the report cannot distinguish the owner, return owner-not-recoverable rather than calling SSFD incoherent.

Project 11 records a different application and many reported results. It is neither the counterfactual for Project 32 nor proof that the same representation claim was coherent there. The 41-report set and its 95 reported benefit instances concern later evidence use; they do not erase the Project 32 difficulty or establish practical worth inside ME.12.

ME.12:5.1 - APP-ME-01 Early Stop

C-EC-Release-v2 remains a candidate account and the three-release statement remains a WorkPlan. ME.12 may check current description, representation, ME.10 task, collection, edition, reliance, permission, application, Work, result-binding, and proposed-organization claims against their own bases. It must not verify planned releases as performed Work or call the candidate whole coherent as a Method.

For every correction, name the exact maintained position. A stale method-base edition returns to that edition result. A failed viewpoint rule returns the lower episteme and failed E.17.0 rule to their direct governor. Recheck the complete C.37 claim group for the action when that use relied on it; when the group belongs to an ME.9 profile, recheck only the cross-use correspondences, omissions, edition relations, decisions to keep representations separate, and conditions for reconsidering several selections that depended on the failed result. A missing A.22 selection-use basis remains the already named gap. Keep the observed support results separate from the missing tailoring definition and untested permission/authority stop; none supplies release evidence.