NSTD.6:4 - Solution

Construct and use one narrative rendering quality evaluation characteristic space for one declared use. Reuse a sufficient current specification and result when their object, question and conditions still match.

For the structural-amount question, NarrativeRenderingEpiplexity specializes C.2.8 U.ExtractableStructuralInformation: the structure this reader or observer can extract. Its three bearers are the receiving narrative episteme, the publication form expressing it, and the specified reader or observer. The selected source structure, correctness criterion, usable prior knowledge, operations, help, access and budget qualify this tuple. An unambiguous rendering reference can identify the account and expression. Use the existing epiplexity basis, scale and evidence fields below to retain the qualifications needed for the comparison; they do not create another bearer or record kind.

Begin with named additional and missing relations when a qualitative comparison answers the question. If a number is useful, count correctly recovered selected semantic relations at a declared grain, optionally as n/N for a fixed nonempty selected set. Each unit preserves participants, predicate, polarity, modality and action-changing conditions. Repeated words, headings or arrows do not add units. Retain which relations were recovered: equal counts can differ in suitability for the next use. A different ordinal or nonnegative structural weighting needs its own explicit structural meaning; a utility weighting is another score. A formal bit estimate needs the mapping in C.2.8, not merely the name epiplexity.

State whether the basis is a conditional design walkthrough, an actual reading or a mapped formal estimate. One response establishes the recovery observed in that trial and can ground an extractability estimate; it does not establish a maximum, impossibility after failure, or reliability across a reader class. An exact computational amount requires the corresponding method and model. Keep the first response, actual help and source returns. Familiar structure can be recovered from an expression; an expert’s independent correction of false or absent instruction earns that expression no credit. Recovery of what a source asserts and recovery of warranted subject structure use different correctness questions.

Compare forms with claims and relevant conditions held constant. Added or changed substantive claims can identify another episteme through C.2.1; changed access, preparation or help qualifies another comparison. A transfer or perturbation result belongs to its tested condition or robustness question and adds nothing to the original amount by itself. Compare effort and usefulness separately through C.11.CRC and C.11; keeping the sufficient rendering is an available result.

NarrativeRenderingQualityEvaluationCharacteristicSpace@Context:
  evaluatedObjectKindRef: NarrativeRenderingVersion@Context
  declaredUseScope:
  objectKindFitRule:
  discriminatingCaseSet:
  characteristicSlotSet:
  epiplexityBasisRule:
  scaleBindingSet:
  valueMeaningSet:
  evidenceBasisRule:
  missingnessAndLoweringRule:
  resultRowShape:
  floorAndExceptionalMeaning:
  protectedTradeoffSet:
  stopOrReopenCondition:
  neighboringGoverningPatternRefs:

Object-kind fit:

Default value meanings for the other ordinal content-quality characteristics follow. NarrativeRenderingEpiplexity uses its own structural scale above; the following 0–5 labels do not assign its amount, missingness or use threshold:

For reliance-bearing or teaching use, the default for structural recovery is that every relation declared necessary for that use must be recoverable under the specified support and evidence conditions. State those necessary relations at the grain the decision needs; a short account of the required distinction and stop can suffice. There is no generic structural-amount floor of 4. Keep the amount and satisfaction of the use condition separate: unrelated extra relations cannot compensate for a missing necessary relation.

The other load-bearing quality characteristics retain default floor 4 on their own scales, including OrderingRecoverability and SourceReturnReadiness. When the selected source structure is a constraint-governed unfolding structure, DemonstrativeSliceRecoverability is load-bearing and may not be below 4. A local low-risk orientation use may set those quality floors to 3 only if non-admissible downstream use is explicit. Neither numeral translates into a structural amount. A narrower use fixes its structure selection before evaluation; removing a difficult relation after observing the answer changes the basis rather than improving the original amount.

Result-row shape:

NarrativeRenderingQualityResultRow@Context:
  narrativeRenderingVersionRef:
  declaredUseScopeRef:
  characteristicId:
  characteristicName:
  scaleRef:
  value:
  evidenceBasisRefs:
  missingnessClass:
  loweringReason:
  repairAction:
  directOwnerRefs:
  reopenCondition:

Package the rows before feeding an improvement loop:

NarrativeRenderingQualityEvaluationResult@Context:
  evaluatedNarrativeRenderingVersionRef:
  declaredUseScopeRef:
  evaluationCharacteristicSpaceRef: NarrativeRenderingQualityEvaluationCharacteristicSpace@Context
  evaluationPurpose:
  evidenceBasisRefs:
  resultRows:
  protectedTradeoffSet:
  belowFloorRows:
  candidateImprovementProposalRows?:
  nonUseBoundary:
  stopOrReopenCondition:

When repeated improvement is wanted, open E.22 first if the quality question is not already framed. Then use E.23 with NSTD.6 as the object-under-improvement evaluation. This DPF does not mint a local loop kind.

NarrativeRenderingImprovementLoopInput@Context:
  e22QuestionFrameRef?:
  objectUnderImprovementRef: NarrativeRenderingVersion@Context
  objectVersionBeforeRef:
  objectUnderImprovementEvaluationRef: NSTD.6
  improvementAim:
  protectedTradeoffSet:
  costAndRiskAccount:
  allowedChangeSlice:
    narrativeRenderingVersion | NSTD.1-intake | NSTD.2-ordering |
    NSTD.3-event-model | NSTD.4-viewpoint | NSTD.5-engagement |
    NSTD.7-generation-and-inspection | NSTD.8-learning-route |
    evaluationCharacteristicSpace
  returnedFindingOrProposalRows:
  expectedReEvaluationResultForm: NarrativeRenderingQualityEvaluationResult@Context
  neighboringGoverningPatternRefs:
  stopContinueSwitchOrHoldCondition:

E.23 may claim improvement only after the changed object version is re-evaluated through NSTD.6 or through a declared stronger evaluation. If the loop changes the source pack, source-currentness, generated-carrier admission, learning publication carrier, publication face, ethics claim, evidence claim, assurance claim, or evaluation characteristic space, the loop must name the neighboring governing pattern and either keep it as the allowed change slice or open separate work. Style edits, prompt retries, or additional drama are admissible loop operations only when their expected movement under NSTD.6 is stated and protected trade-offs are checked. B.4 is relevant only when the narrative episteme or learning route is claimed to evolve across use and renewed operation; G.11 handles refresh when source currentness, reader telemetry, teaching-test evidence, generated-narrative practice, or FPF edition changes.

Before assigning values, recover the source and use basis for the question being answered.

For current-product evaluation, name the selected subject structures, intended reader work and necessary prerequisites, then trace what the present rendering preserves, hides or loses. Use the task and qualified subject sources to establish the needed structure; the rendering can help refine that basis but cannot excuse its own omissions. Recover its ordering rationale, source-return condition, and the event or mechanism, viewpoint, agency, engagement and learning-route relations that matter to this use through NSTD.1 through NSTD.5 and NSTD.8. Point to actual source and rendering passages. If this account is reconstructed now, identify it as an evaluation of the current product, with its uncertainties, not a record of what the author did. Missing manufacturing notes do not by themselves lower current-product values; missing subject basis, inaccessible return or unsupported relation still does.

For a promised transformation, compare the named source and result versions against the promised preservation or change. This can establish their present fidelity relation without establishing the actual sequence of manufacturing actions. For a claim about actual construction or repair, obtain records or other admissible evidence of those actions and distinguish them from a plausible reconstruction. Trace the applicable NSTD.1 selection, NSTD.2 ordering, NSTD.3 mechanism, NSTD.4 viewpoint, NSTD.5 engagement and NSTD.8 learning-route decisions. If their history cannot be established, leave that historical or assurance claim unsupported and return it to its owner. A good product does not supply the missing history.

A candidate can be evaluated before acceptance; the result can inform acceptance, repair or rejection. Additional requirements follow from the proposed use and claims. When generated or discovered content is intended to inform architecture work, C.35 supplies that assessment. Reuse as evidence follows A.10; assurance, publication authority and actual human learning-effect claims require their own grounds. None of those conclusions follows merely from a favourable narrative-quality result.

Use this evaluation sequence:

1. Object-kind fit: which narrative account and version is being assessed? Identify it in its text, slide sequence or other form. A question about the source collection, generator or whole teaching programme returns to the evaluation for that different object.
2. Evidence fit for the question: for current-product quality, recover selected source structures, ordering, source return and relevant relations from the subject/use basis and present rendering; for promised fidelity, compare the named source and result; for actual construction or repair, recover evidence of the claimed actions. Keep these conclusions distinct.
3. Declared-use fit: is the reader or listener use narrow enough to evaluate, and are non-admissible downstream uses stated?
4. Load-bearing characteristics: assign values only to the characteristics needed for the declared use, but include every characteristic whose failure would make the use unsafe or useless.
5. Low-value repair: for every value below floor, name the smallest repair route before proposing style, drama, or generation retries.
6. Re-evaluation route: if any repair changes the object version or selected source basis, plan a new NSTD.6 evaluation before claiming improvement.

Missingness and lowering rules:

A defined trial that recovers none of the selected relations supports observed recovery 0 on that scale, not impossible extraction. An empty denominator supports no fraction. Wrong-kind handling precedes amount assignment. A qualified design estimate can remain available without an actual trial; obtain a trial when its possible outcomes can change the receiving decision.

Default narrative rendering quality characteristics:

LearningRouteReconstructionFit is an additional characteristic for teaching uses. It uses the ordinal quality meanings above and the adjacent calibration below; it is not a structural-amount scale.