ME.24:5 - Archetypal Grounding
ME.24:5.1 - A covered topic with a missing stop
This constructed case starts with handbook H, edition 3, §4: “Reuse an earlier review for a display-only change.” Paper L, edition 1, §2, adds the condition that reviewed claims, question and qualification window must still match. The reconciled contribution also requires a new source-dependent recheck to stop if its required argument cannot be recovered.
A candidate language has a “Reuse review” entry and cites H and L, but its body says only “reuse the prior review for display changes”. The destination map marks H §4 and L §2 as covered.
Reconstruction finds the reusable action but not the qualification window or source-return stop. The topic is present; the promised decision is not fully recoverable. Return a description-content correction to the body carrying that answer. The correct narrower conclusion is that the action is recoverable while its conditions are missing, not that the entire language has failed.
After repair, the body states the matching-claim/question/window condition and the local source stop. Repeat the same use: the reader can now distinguish permitted reuse from a recheck lacking its basis. This is a constructed content check, not a measurement of review effectiveness.
ME.24:5.2 - Change one source without rewriting the repertoire
The later facts are:
| Retained contribution | Basis after the change |
|---|---|
| A1, the use of H’s argument in a new recheck | H is now available only as excerpts; the retained dossier has a locator but not the required argument. |
| A2, a narrower condition supplied independently by paper L | L remains available and its relied-on claim is unchanged. |
| A3, an unresolved shortcut from returned MR account W | W retains its rival explanations and evidence gap; the H argument was not its basis. |
Return A1’s new recheck as unavailable and lower only the dependent current use. Keep its earlier result with the historical basis; do not infer falsity from lost access. Retain A2’s condition and A3’s uncertainty. If another pattern copied A1’s assumption, it is affected even if its file did not change.
The repair is either to recover the required argument, use a separately justified sufficient basis, or narrow the current use. A full repertoire rewrite would add no supported correction to A2 or A3.
ME.24:5.3 - When gap-only is not justified
A team has no recoverable earlier allocation and cannot tell which source claims the language relied on. It cannot prove that only a newly changed paragraph matters. Return the missing baseline and broaden recovery through ME.4/ME.21. Do not call the language source-complete or all other results unaffected.