NSTD.6:5 - Archetypal Grounding

NSTD.6:5.1 - Value bank: full result rows

Use this bank when a narrative rendering “sounds good” and therefore tempts the worker to skip evaluation. Each row illustrates evaluation of a narrative version for one declared use; prior acceptance is unnecessary. The same text may receive different values for a different use.

Case	Characteristic	Value	Evidence basis	Low-value repair
FPF seminar handout	`NarrativeRenderingEpiplexity`	Qualitative illustration; no numerical amount established	The case assumes learners can recover `EntityOfConcern`, forces, solution and neighboring exits. These aspect names do not define equal semantic units, a denominator or an observed reading protocol.	Retain the stated recovery. If transfer matters, try choosing a governing pattern in a new situation and qualify that separate result; it does not increase the original amount.
FPF seminar handout	`SourceReturnReadiness`	`4`	In this constructed handout, each slogan links to its pattern; the exercise sends the reader to that pattern’s conditions before applying the slogan in a new situation. This supplies a when-and-where return, but no changed-condition response or boundary replay for `5`.	Reopen if the task, reader preparation or source access changes, or if the reader cannot locate or use the return. Repair that failure even when the source text is unchanged.
FPF seminar handout	`EngagementBoundedness`	`4`	The constructed failure story is marked as fictional and asks the reader to compare workload conditions; it does not present the anecdote as evidence that FPF guarantees success. This is a design judgement, not an observed attention gain.	Reopen a changed reader effect or stronger benefit claim; restore a condition the persuasive use needs or obtain grounds for that particular claim.
Homotopy explanation	`LanguageStatePrecisionAndCoarseningFit`	`3`	Analogy is vivid but learners may not know where formal conditions return.	Add an analogy-stop line and a formal boundary task.
Homotopy explanation	`OrderingRecoverability`	`4`	Didactic order is named and proof order is deferred by value.	To reach `5`, add a second problem where learner maps story order to formal dependency order.
Franchise continuation probe	`SourceReturnReadiness`	`4`	An illustrative repair of the Readme’s key case puts this return in the draft: “If a scene assumes access before Wednesday, consult the supplied premise that the character first obtains the key on Wednesday.” The condition and destination are explicit.	If the premise or proposed access changes, reopen that continuity comparison. Check a changed case when robustness matters; private or public use alone does not change this value.
Live commentary	`EventMechanismSupport`	`3`	Observation and provisional interpretation are separated, but later telemetry return is only generic.	Add specific official record, replay, or statistics return condition.
Generated graph-to-text narrative	`EventMechanismSupport`	`2`	The draft states “A caused B”, while the source graph establishes only that A preceded B.	Return to `NSTD.3` or `NSTD.7`: remove the unsupported cause or obtain the needed causal account.

NSTD.6:5.2 - An existing product and an unknown manufacturing history

An editor receives a handout narrative with a declared onboarding use, qualified subject basis and source-return links, but no manufacturing or repair journal. The editor reconstructs the needed source relations from the intended work and subject sources, follows their use through the present explanation and exercises, and tests a meaningful changed case. A missing return or a false relation is a current-product defect. No journal is needed to identify or repair it, and a strong present boundary test can support a high product value without inventing an earlier repair.

If the same editor is instead asked whether the handout faithfully transforms a named seminar, the seminar and handout must be compared. If asked whether the author performed a prescribed review or made a particular correction, evidence of that action is also needed. Current fidelity or a successful reader attempt cannot answer that historical question. A generated candidate receives the same current-product evaluation; its acceptance or production-history claims remain separate questions.

NSTD.6:5.3 - Before and after evaluation repair

Before evaluation statement:

The narrative is strong because readers liked it and remembered the main point.

Failure: engagement and memory are treated as total quality. Source recovery, relation strength, owner routing, and use boundary are absent.

After evaluation statement:

For the declared onboarding use, the illustrative recovery result is that learners can reconstruct the pattern-use route; a numerical amount needs a specified relation set, conditions and evidence. Source-return readiness receives value 3 because two slogans lack pattern-body refs, and engagement boundary receives value 4 because the failure story is marked as archetypal. The first repair is to add source-return refs for the slogans before changing style.

Now E.23 has a concrete changed slice: add two source-return refs and re-evaluate source-return readiness. Revisit the amount only if the changed access or explanation can change structural recovery. An earlier amount label is reusable only through its recoverable selection, scale, conditions and evidence; an unsupported 4 does not become 4/5.

NSTD.6:5.4 - Adjacent-value calibration

For structural-amount calibration, fix five relations in a narrative about reusing a review after a display change: reuse requires the same claims, the same question, and the same qualification window; an unavailable required argument stops the new check and returns it to the source; that stop preserves unrelated review results. This adapts ME.22’s content example. The condition, stop and source return form one compound unit at this declared grain. Hold the reader, case facts, material, operations, help and budget constant. The counts below illustrate nested constructed recovery sets, not three observed trials or a universal five-point rubric. Another selected set uses its own count or denominator without conversion to five labels.

Correctly recovered units	Selected set size	Meaning at the fixed conditions
`3`	`5`	`3/5`: the three reuse conditions are correctly recovered.
`4`	`5`	`4/5`: those same conditions plus the required-argument stop and return are correctly recovered.
`5`	`5`	`5/5`: those four units plus preservation of unrelated results are correctly recovered.

The other characteristics use their own ordinal quality meanings:

Characteristic	`3` means	`4` means	`5` means
`OrderingRecoverability`	Order is named, but wrong reconstruction remains likely.	Order, preserved relations, lost relations, and misread block are explicit.	Conflicting order layers are handled and tested.
`EventMechanismSupport`	Events are coherent, but support strength is partly inferred from wording.	Relation strength and reconstruction target are explicit.	A wording or viewpoint change does not change recovered support strength.
`ViewpointAgencyDiscipline`	Viewpoint is useful, but agency or responsibility repair is incomplete.	Viewpoint function and the source of a consequential attribution are recoverable.	Reader can remove or swap viewpoint without losing source structure.
`EngagementBoundedness`	Interest exists, but a needed source relation or condition for informed choice is missing.	Interest supports the declared use while preserving the needed relations and conditions.	A more engaging variant improves attention without lowering source recovery, with the comparison supported under the stated conditions.
`SourceStructureSelectionFit`	Selected content partly serves the purpose, but a needed relation is omitted.	Selected relations support the intended use and meaningful omissions are recoverable.	A relevant changed case confirms the selection’s stated reach and limits.
`LearningRouteReconstructionFit`	Learners can retell the route but not reliably reconstruct source relations.	Learners reconstruct source spine and source-return boundaries.	Learners transfer the route to a new case and identify the correct neighboring owner.

NSTD.6:5.5 - Evaluation-to-improvement repair input without process theatre

NSTD.6 does not create a big improvement program. It creates result rows. A repeated improvement loop needs only:

NarrativeRenderingImprovementLoopInput@Context:
  objectVersionRef: narrative rendering version, including a candidate
  evaluationResultRefs: selected `NSTD.6` rows
  improvementAim: raise one declared value without lowering protected trade-offs
  allowedChangedSlice: wording, source-return link, ordering marker, viewpoint repair, engagement device, generated source plan, or learning task
  protectedTradeoffSet: source fidelity, owner routing, engagement, cost, reader burden
  expectedReEvaluationForm: rerun the affected `NSTD.6` rows and any neighbor owner checks

If the change is “regenerate until better”, the object version and changed slice are gone. If the change is “add a source-return link and an analogy-stop task”, E.23 can operate and NSTD.6 can re-evaluate.

NSTD.6:5.6 - FPF owner teaching

C.2.8 governs structural amount for architecture and non-architecture narratives alike. NSTD.6 applies it to the narrative and the selected observer/use conditions. C.33 retains the separate architecture-description adequacy question. Source-selection fit, source-return readiness, effort and usefulness remain separately judged; a story need not be an architecture description for its structural amount to be compared.

Pass case: an FPF seminar handout narrates how a practitioner moves from problem frame to forces to solution and checks. It names FPF pattern source sections, ordering rule, learner reconstruction task, and source-return points. Its necessary source relations are recoverable under the declared support; the other selected quality characteristics can reach 4 or 5 on their own scales. The handout is not evidence that FPF is correct, and those quality labels do not assign its structural amount.

Fail despite fluency: a polished architecture story says one chosen architecture “won” because it felt coherent, hides rejected candidates, omits architectural characteristics, and gives no source-return path. The needed architecture relations are missing, so the structural-use condition fails; assign an amount only when its selection and conditions are established. OrderingRecoverability and SourceReturnReadiness can fall below their own floors even if engagement is high.

Different object: an evaluator is asked whether a text generator is reliable across unseen topics. One narrative’s NSTD.6 result does not answer that question; the generator and its proposed operating range need their own evaluation. By contrast, a fluent generated story with an unknown source is still a narrative candidate: visible defects can be diagnosed, while source fidelity and structural amount remain unassigned where their required basis is unavailable.