| candidate-enactment bias | A source-described candidate or observed practice becomes an admitted Method and enactment occurrence. | Use the candidate branch until A.3.1 and A.15.1 independently succeed. |
| relation-label bias | “Transmission”, “selection”, or “memory” substitutes for value, participants, applicability, and obtaining predicate. | Apply A.6.RCD and state a positive plus discriminating negative case. |
| claim-as-occurrence bias | A claim episteme, identifier, or later report creates or preserves a world-side relation occurrence. | Separate claim, evidence, interval observations, and conditional A.6.REL identity. |
| carrier-bundle bias | Cards, teaching, tutoring, repository, rules, fields, and forums become one unnamed subject. | Name every actual subject and direct relation used; select a structure or architecture only when its governor applies. |
| authorization inflation | Ownership, project position, assignment, permission, authority, and expertise become interchangeable. | Name the assignment, permission, or authority predicate, participants, permitted change, scope, and positive basis. |
| single-explanation bias | A carrier change and later activity are treated as explanation and proof. | Keep credible action-changing rivals and uncertainty. Select a discriminating observation only when it is obtainable and useful enough; current bounded evidence can support continuation without settling the explanation. |
| consequence-as-relation bias | Successful practitioner Work proves every cultural claim. | Observe the named cultural predicate and the practitioner or constructed-Method consequence separately; use C.28 only for causal reliance. |
| maturity-score bias | Missing cultural claims are averaged into one adoption stage. | Return supported claims and explicit gaps without a scalar cultural verdict or lifecycle. |