SIE.8:7 - Conformance Checklist

Check the conclusion being returned. Only its applicable checks need an answer; unused branches require neither a record nor an omission explanation.

For every result

• The receiving question, named proposal or comparison scope, disposition, grounds, and material limits are recoverable.
• The evidence supports that disposition at its stated scope; it creates no broader feasibility, running-service, or achieved-performance claim.

For a sufficient rejection

• The decisive condition and its qualified evidence defeat the named proposal for this use.

That rejection completes the Method when it answers the requested question. The following comparison and implementation checks do not become prerequisites for it.

For a live comparison or positive selection

• A successful candidate preserves the receiving result, mapping rules, and required semantic branches.
• Serious remaining candidates expose access, state, execution, provenance, failure, operation, recovery, exit, and joint resource demand.
• Freshness and latency are defined for the receiving use.
• Source authority, custody, permissions, correction/deletion, and retention consequences are explicit.
• Security/privacy and runtime credential differences are compared where they can change the result.
• Reproducibility and provenance behavior are specified for the candidate’s virtual occurrences and copied state.
• Relevant outage, access, mapping, correction, refresh, provenance-loss, and recovery cases support the proposed conclusion.
• For a selected realization, exact implementation and operating results remain with their direct owners, and SIE.9 receives the required currentness, error, incomplete-result, and fallback meanings.

For a proposed inquiry

• Its obtainable decision contribution justifies the full burden and displaced work.