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:
| Current question | Relevant knowledge and condition | Answer now |
|---|---|---|
| May the retained participant claims be reviewed? | ME.5 results remain applicable; review does not presuppose the unresolved whole. | Available: review those claims while preserving their statuses. |
| May P’s proposed composition of W be described as obtaining? | W and participant identities are available, but ME.7/B.1.5 still need the exact required relations. | Unknown: recover the basis of methodPartOf(M2,W). |
| May this candidate be published? | The applicable publication decision has not been obtained. | Blocked: content review supplies no replacement for that decision. |
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.