ME.20:5 - Archetypal Grounding

ME.20:5.1 - Continue a Release-Method Proposal Across Two Turns

This constructed case concerns ongoing Method-architecture work on proposal P. Whole Method W and participant Methods M1 and M2 have independent identity results, and the participant qualifications remain current. P proposes a construction of W using both participants, but the claimed methodPartOf(M2,W) is unresolved: its cited procedure has not been checked for a required contribution or an admitted alternative in W’s construction. A description review can inspect the independent participant claims now. Publication is blocked because no publication decision has been obtained.

The Method engineer needs the description-review result now while keeping the whole claim visible for the next meeting. The continuation answer is:

The engineer uses A.15.7 to choose the available bounded review. The review lead will perform it; the engineer is the chooser in this case. The feedback condition is a review result or new evidence that changes the whole claim. Because the next meeting will rely on these distinctions, the engineer retains one situated result about P’s architecture question, citing the existing ME.5 results rather than copying them. No formal CGUS is needed for this use.

Before the next choice, the relevant procedure is inspected. Its construction rule places M2 outside W: M2 supplies optional advice but is neither required nor an admitted construction alternative. That changes the proposed composition claim, not the independently established identity of W, M1, or M2.

The engineer returns the affected composition question to ME.7. The proposed relation set is not supported as W’s obtaining composition; retain the useful support relation and return P for correction or another proposed arrangement. The participant ME.5 results remain supported; the bounded review and publication blocker remain as before. The new situated result changes the composition-claim and return content. It does not backdate a new Method, change completed review Work, or announce a new structure from one new fact. If another proposed arrangement changes W’s reusable semantics, that later proposal needs its own identity question.

What changed in practice is small but consequential: one changed source claim reopens one whole-account decision and its dependent uses, while available independent review continues.

ME.20:5.2 - A Sufficient Direct Description

The current approved description already says: inspect the named evidence field; if the signed supplier result is absent, retain the release hold and return to the supplier. The field is absent and no competing action is admissible. Use that description and its stop directly. There is no extra PLUS-ME result, choice dossier, formal structure, or invented second alternative.

ME.20:5.3 - An Assistant Recommends from Stale Facts

An assistant retrieves a relevant review pattern and recommends sending the candidate to the reviewer. Its recommendation uses yesterday’s access statement. The current question is whether that reviewer can inspect the restricted evidence today; the assistant has neither that access nor publication authority.

Keep the recommendation as a recommendation. Ask the access holder to refresh the decision-bearing fact. If access is unknown, the evidence-dependent review continuation is unknown; if access is denied, it is blocked. A permitted review of unrelated public claims may remain available if the same review Method allows that narrower result.

The deciding engineer uses A.15.7 for the next action, the access holder supplies the access answer, and the permitted reviewer performs any selected review. Confidence in retrieval supplies none of those relations. If no safe narrower review is available, stop at the missing access result. No performed review or publication follows merely from the recommendation.