SIE.6 - Fuse Source-Qualified Claims without Erasing Conflict

Type: Method pattern Status: Eternal alpha Normativity: Normative method guidance within SIE; examples are constructed and non-normative.

Primary working result: a SourceQualifiedClaimFusion@Use that preserves each source claim, subject and any relied-on identity premise, scope, interval, authority, uncertainty, derivation, and relation to other claims, then returns a qualified view, explicit conflict, non-comparability, or unresolved result for one receiving use.

SIE.6:1 - Problem Frame

Use this when a receiving answer must combine claims from separately governed sources and a simple union, priority rule, average, overwrite, or “golden record” would hide differences in meaning, subject, time, authority, or uncertainty. The recognizable failure is one clean value whose provenance can be displayed but whose conflict or non-comparability can no longer be recovered.

The primary EntityOfConcern is one source-qualified claim composition for a named receiving question. The first move is to state the exact source claims and the subject relation the receiving question requires. The first result is either a qualified view with explicit derivation or an honest conflict, non-comparability, or unresolved branch.

The payoff is an answer the receiver can interpret without pretending that integration owns truth or preference. Do not use SIE.6 to decide domain truth, authoritative value, survivorship, risk acceptance, or action. A domain authority or receiving decision may consume the composition and choose; SIE preserves what that choice depends on.

SIE.6:2 - Problem

Claims that share a field name can concern different concepts, entities, grains, intervals, or authority scopes. Claims that do concern the same entity can disagree without either being malformed. A timestamp does not settle whether one claim supersedes another; a source rank does not explain why the rank applies; and an average can be meaningless across different measurement definitions.

If composition silently collapses these differences, later validation can test only the fused value. It cannot test the losing claim, the identity premise, the conflict rule, or the receiver’s permitted use. Provenance survives as a list of sources but no longer constrains meaning.

SIE.6:3 - Forces

Force	Tension
Simplicity	Receivers prefer one view, while a truthful answer may need several qualified rows or an explicit conflict.
Authority	Some sources are authoritative for bounded claims, while no source may own the whole receiving question.
Time	Newer claims may supersede older ones, while differing intervals, effectivity, or observation times can make them jointly informative.
Identity	Composition needs a subject relation, while an unresolved identity premise must stop only the dependent branch.
Uncertainty	Quantification can support comparison, while unlike confidence, status, or evidence forms should not be normalized without warrant.
Performance	Precomputed canonical values are convenient, while preserving source-qualified alternatives and derivation costs storage and query work.

SIE.6:4 - Solution

Compose claims only after their meanings, subjects, scopes, intervals, authority, uncertainty, and provenance are explicit. Classify the relation among claims before applying a rule. Preserve the source claims and any relied-on identity premises in the result. Return a qualified view only under a stated rule and use boundary; otherwise return conflict, non-comparability, or unresolved.

SIE.6:4.1 - Pattern-Use Unfolding

Name the receiving question and action. State what the composed answer may change and which outcomes are acceptable: one qualified row, several rows, conflict, non-comparability, unresolved, or stop.
Bind exact source claims. Reference SIE.2 rows and SIE.4 correspondences. Record each proposition or data-derived claim, scope, interval/effectivity, units, status, uncertainty, derivation, source, and authority.
Bind the subject relation needed by the use. Reference SIE.5 when composition depends on claims concerning the same entity. For separately attributed claims about clearly distinct subjects, preserve their subjects and attribution. Keep an explanation of unused identity only when it affects interpretation or later reliance. A correspondence alone does not establish subject identity.
Test comparability. Decide whether claims use compatible concepts, subjects, grains, units, intervals, and observation/decision roles. Preserve non-comparability as a result.
Classify the claim relation. Distinguish compatible conjunction, refinement, overlap, duplication, supersession under a justified rule, contradiction, non-comparability, and unresolved relation.
Choose a bounded composition rule. Examples include retaining all qualified claims, selecting one claim under an explicit domain authority/effectivity rule, deriving a new claim through a stated calculation, or returning conflict. State rejected alternatives and semantic loss.
Construct the qualified output. Include the source claims or stable references, applied rule, any relied-on identity premise, derived value if any, provenance/trace, authority boundary, uncertainty, conflict/non-comparability status, and permitted receiving use.
Expose failure and challenge. Define missing-source, stale-source, unresolved-identity, incompatible-unit, contradictory-authority, and unsupported-default branches. Do not convert them into null or a chosen value without the contract’s permission.
State downstream and reopen conditions. Identify mappings and interfaces that consume the composition and the source, identity, rule, authority, or use change that reopens it.

SIE.6:4.2 - Record the Result

Composition position	Required content
receiving use	question, action changed, acceptable output branches
source claims	exact propositions/data claims, meanings, subjects, scopes, intervals/effectivity, units, status, uncertainty, source and derivation
identity premise	referenced `SIE.5` disposition when composition relies on identity; an explanation of unused identity only when it affects interpretation or later reliance
comparability	compatible dimensions and any difference that prevents comparison
claim relation	conjunction, refinement, overlap, duplicate, qualified supersession, contradiction, non-comparability, unresolved
composition rule	rule, authority/evidence basis, conditions, rejected alternatives, semantic loss
output	qualified view or explicit conflict/non-comparability/unresolved result, provenance/trace, permitted use
downstream and reopen	mapping/interface references, failure branches, exact changes that reopen

SIE.6:4.3 - What Changes in Practice

The team stops treating a canonical value as the natural output of integration. A receiver can see why claims were combined, retained separately, or stopped, and can return to the exact source, identity, authority, or rule that changes the answer.

SIE.6:5 - Archetypal Grounding - Provider Availability Claims

Two providers expose availability for the same buyer-recognized product family. Provider A returns onHand = 12 at 10:00; Provider B returns availableToPromise = 9 at 10:02. A purchasing integration initially proposes a single available = 21 value.

The source inventory shows that on hand is current physical stock before reservations, while available to promise is a provider-governed commitment quantity after its own reservation and horizon rules. The values are not additive and are not globally equivalent. A product-family correspondence exists, but individual inventory objects are not asserted identical.

Claim relation question	Constructed result
Can the two values be summed?	non-comparable for summation because definitions, allocation rules, and authority scopes differ
Can both support a “which provider can satisfy quantity 8 now?” query?	conditionally comparable only after the contract accepts Provider A’s additional reservation check and Provider B’s promise horizon; retain separate rows
What if Provider A reports 12 and a later status reports 4?	classify by source occurrence, observation interval, and justified supersession rule; retain both claims and derivation rather than overwriting silently
What if product identity is unresolved?	stop that product branch and expose the unresolved `SIE.5` premise
What if one API times out?	return available source-qualified rows plus an incomplete-result flag if the contract permits; never substitute zero

The interface can return two qualified provider rows, explicit non-comparability for arithmetic aggregation, and a missing-source branch. Purchasing owns supplier choice and risk acceptance. SIE.6 supplies no canonical stock fact.

SIE.6:6 - Bias-Annotation

Lens	Likely drift	Repair
Governance	A source priority table silently decides truth or business action.	Name the authority and exact claim scope for every selection or supersession rule.
Architecture	The target schema requires one value and erases alternatives.	Change the output shape or expose conflict/non-comparability as first-class branches.
Ontology/Epistemology	Data values, claims, facts, and decisions collapse.	Record propositions, scope, uncertainty, derivation, and receiver decision separately.
Pragmatics	Every disagreement becomes an elaborate dispute.	Classify only relations that can change the receiving answer; retain independent claims without forced comparison.
Didactics	“Fusion” is read as merge or averaging.	Show examples where the correct fusion is a qualified set, conflict, or non-comparability.

SIE.6:7 - Conformance Checklist

The receiving question and every allowed output branch are explicit.
Source claims retain meaning, subject, scope, interval/effectivity, units, status, uncertainty, source, and derivation.
Every load-bearing subject identity premise is referenced and tested.
Comparability is judged before aggregation or selection.
Compatible, refining, overlapping, duplicate, superseding, contradictory, non-comparable, and unresolved relations are distinguishable.
A composition rule states its authority/evidence basis, conditions, rejected alternatives, and loss.
Source claims remain recoverable from the output.
Missing, stale, unresolved-identity, incompatible-unit, contradictory-authority, and default branches are explicit where applicable.
The result does not claim domain truth, authoritative value, preference, authorization, or action beyond its source and receiver boundaries.

SIE.6:8 - Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

Anti-pattern	Repair
Last write wins	State why time establishes supersession for this claim and interval; otherwise retain both.
Trusted source always wins	Name the source’s exact authority scope and preserve losing claims and conflict.
Average the values	Establish compatible meaning, subject, unit, interval, and aggregation semantics first.
Null means zero or absent	Preserve missing, unavailable, unknown, not applicable, and zero as distinct branches.
Provenance after fusion	Keep source claims and derivation as inputs to the composition, not decoration on the result.
One canonical fact	Return a qualified view only when the use and authority rule warrant it; otherwise return plural claims or conflict.

SIE.6:9 - Consequences

Receivers obtain explainable views and honest conflict branches. Corrections can target the source claim, identity premise, composition rule, or receiving use without reconstructing an opaque golden record. Different receivers may lawfully obtain different bounded views from the same preserved claims.

The cost is richer output and explicit rule ownership. Some applications must handle plural, incomplete, or conflicting results instead of one scalar value.

SIE.6:10 - Rationale

Claims are source- and scope-bearing assertions, not free-floating values. Composition is therefore a new derivation whose premises and authority must remain inspectable. Preserving the inputs is what makes conflict, correction, and changed-use replay possible.

SIE.6:11 - SoTA-Echoing

The best-known line combines claim individuation, provenance, authority-aware data integration, and explicit uncertainty. The serious default is master-record survivorship or source ranking. Those Methods can be valid under an authorized MDM use, but they are defective as a universal semantic-integration default because they hide non-comparability and transfer authority. SIE.6 adapts the line by making the qualified composition or explicit conflict the domain result.

Source line	Adopt, adapt, or reject	Role and limit
Current FPF `C.2.1`	adopt	Keeps claims as distinct representational objects; SIE supplies the cross-source use composition.
Current FPF `A.10`	adopt	Governs claim-bound evidence and provenance reliance; evidence law does not choose the domain truth or action.
PROV-O	adapt	Supports derivation, attribution, revision, and invalidation traces; provenance alone establishes no truth, priority, or comparability.
MDM survivorship and golden-record practice	adapt only under direct authority	May supply an authoritative-value result for a bounded domain; SIE preserves its source and scope rather than generalizing it.
last-write, average, or global source-rank defaults	reject as universal	Each may be a justified local rule, but none is semantically safe without compatible claims and authority.

Reopen when a source claim, identity premise, authority rule, interval, uncertainty model, or receiving use changes, or when representative conflict cases cannot be expressed without hiding action-changing information.

SIE.6:12 - Relations

SIE.2 supplies source claims, meanings, editions, authority, provenance, currentness, and gaps.
SIE.4 supplies the qualified correspondences needed to compare claim predicates or values.
SIE.5 supplies load-bearing subject identity dispositions; claim conflict does not alter those identities by itself.
SIE.7 may implement the qualified composition rule but must preserve its branches and trace.
SIE.9 exposes qualified views, plural claims, conflict, non-comparability, and incomplete-source states to the receiver.
SIE.10 tests the composition rule and negative branches. MDM, domain, and application owners retain truth, value, preference, authorization, and action.