SIE.11:4.1 - Pattern-Use Unfolding

1. Compare the relied-on meaning. Identify what the receiving question depended on in the earlier source or premise and what the later content says. Include changed applicability, subject grain, interval, assumptions, or limits where relevant. An inaccessible later definition leaves that comparison unresolved.
2. Finish a compatible repair when sufficient. If content, applicability, and access remain compatible for the use, make the needed reference repair and retain matching results. A version or URL change alone does not require every downstream Method to run again.
3. Find affected uses when their scope is unsettled. Apply A.10.1 to discover actual reliance within the question’s scope, using source-side and receiver-side evidence or an index that adequately covers both. Distinguish a material dependency from a mention. Retain coverage gaps that limit the intended conclusion.
4. Select the integration result that the change can alter. Use the domain returns below. Follow a further consumer only when the changed result can alter its action or claim. The physical proximity of files is not a dependency rule.
5. Repair or revalidate that result. Apply its defining Method to the changed premise. Reuse earlier evidence whose actual conditions still match. Return a supported continuation, repair, permitted narrower use, or scoped gap. Source truth, master identity, product release, and application decisions go to the owners of those decisions.
6. Return the completed branch. Give the receiver the result it needs, with the changed premise and remaining limits where those affect reliance. A completed direct result is sufficient for its own receiving question.
7. Combine results when a receiver needs the wider answer. State the covered uses, their relevant results, unresolved uses or discovery gaps, and the continuation that those results support. A broader no-impact conclusion requires the corresponding coverage; completed local branches cannot supply unexamined ones.

When additional evidence is being considered, apply C.11.DUA to compare its attainable contribution to the receiving decision with its cost, delay, downside, and displaced work. A gap can remain a qualified gap when further inquiry cannot support a worthwhile next action; that limitation does not warrant a stronger claim.