#Evidence Graph Referring (C-4)

A.10 · Stable · Kernel pattern · Normative · Part A - Kernel Architecture Cluster

#About this pattern

This is a generated FPF pattern page projected from the published FPF source. It is canonical FPF content for this ID; it is not a FPF Reference product feature page.

#How to use this pattern

Read the ID, status, type, and normativity first. Use the content for exact wording, the relations for adjacent concepts, and citations to keep active work grounded without pasting the whole specification.

Type: Kernel pattern Status: Stable Normativity: Normative

Use this pattern when a claim, metric, model result, dashboard tile, confidence badge, review note, credential, provenance label, quantum-like statement, causal-use statement, or generated explanation starts acting as evidence while the evidence carrier, evidence-producing work, method trace, time window, source-currentness relation, or rival explanation is still implicit.

#Keywords

• evidence
• traceability
• provenance
• evidence carrier
• claim support
• authority-reliance evidence path
• status register
• register excerpt
• generated-explanation source support
• exact authority reference
• probe/distributed/export/causal evidence
• SCR/RSCR.

#Relations

#Content

#Problem frame

Use this pattern when a claim, metric, model result, dashboard tile, confidence badge, review note, credential, provenance label, quantum-like statement, causal-use statement, or generated explanation starts acting as evidence while the evidence carrier, evidence-producing work, method trace, time window, source-currentness relation, or rival explanation is still implicit.

Primary EntityOfConcern. The EntityOfConcern is the claim-bound evidence-provenance graph relation: the path in the evidence-provenance graph that links one named claim or effect to concrete carriers, evidence-producing or evidence-interpreting work occurrences, role assignment when current, method trace or work trace, time stance, and admissible evidence use.

First useful move. Write the smallest because-graph that can answer: which claim or effect, which carriers, which evidence-producing or evidence-interpreting work occurrence and role assignment when current, which method or work trace, which time window, which evidence relation, and which bounded use?

What goes wrong if missed. Claims become weightless, dashboards become authority, provenance becomes truth, credentials become permission, generated explanations become evidence, method descriptions get mixed with work traces, and part-whole structure is mistaken for evidence.

What this buys. One bounded evidence relation that can be replayed, contested, refreshed, narrowed, or used by a neighboring governing pattern without making evidence pretend to be approval, permission, gate passage, performed work, assurance, causal authority, or part-whole structure.

Ordinary use. For routine source-finding, orientation, bounded reversible probes, and low-stakes evidence use, keep the evidence relation small: claim, carrier, producer or source-maintenance role assignment, method trace or work trace when relevant, time window, bounded evidence use, unsupported attempted use, and reopen trigger.

Reliance-facing use. Expand the evidence relation only when consequence severity, reuse, contestability, cross-context movement, source-currentness risk, credential reliance, provenance reliance, gate use, release use, assurance use, work use, causal-use claim, or privacy boundary makes the extra field decide the current claim.

Not this pattern when. Not this pattern when the current claim is authorization, commitment, performed work, gate decision, assurance, causal identification, measurement construction, representation-scheme transition, explanation faithfulness, or source publication use itself. In those cases, use the neighboring governing pattern and let A.10 supply only the evidence-provenance graph relation it needs.

Use A.2.4 first when the immediate question is only whether an episteme is being used as evidence or status for a claim, before a full evidence-provenance graph relation is needed. A.2.4 keeps episteme evidence-use and status-use relation slots distinct from U.RoleAssignment; A.10 then owns the full claim-bound evidence-provenance graph relation when the carrier, producer, method trace, work trace, time window, and provenance relation must be replayable.

Here path means a path in the evidence-provenance graph, not a route for actions to follow.

#Problem

Without a uniform evidence path, models drift into five failure modes:

1. Weightless claims. Metrics or arguments appear in the model with no link to their symbol carriers (files, datasets, lab notebooks, figures).
2. Collapsed scopes. Design-time method specs are silently mixed with run-time traces; results cannot be reproduced because "what was planned" and "what work occurred" are conflated.
3. Self-justifying loops. A claim is used as evidence for itself, or the same work occurrence both produces the target claim and supplies its evidence without a separated evidence-producing or interpreting work occurrence, provenance relation, source-maintenance role assignment, or relying context.
4. Source loss during aggregation. As Γ combines parts, some sources fall out; subsequent audit cannot reconstruct why a compound claim was accepted.
5. Temporal ambiguity. Time-series are aggregated without interval coverage or dating source; gaps and overlaps invalidate comparisons and trend claims.

The business effect is predictable: confidence badges cannot be defended, cross‑scale consistency (A.9) is broken, and iteration slows because every review re‑litigates “where did this come from?”.

#Forces

#Solution — The Evidence Graph Referring Standard

The Standard is a small set of primitives applied uniformly, with practitioner-first clarity and formal connection points for proof obligations. Its primary EntityOfConcern is the evidence-provenance path for a claim or use: an evidence episteme or evidence record, target claim or target use, publication or carrier relation, provenance relation, evidence-producing or evidence-interpreting work occurrence, producer or source-maintenance role assignment when current, method trace when relevant, time stance, scope, polarity, relevance window, and assurance use. Authority-looking reliance and causal-use evidence are specialized uses of that same evidence path; they do not redefine A.10 as a pattern about labels, dashboard wording, or source rhetoric.

#Evidence-provenance graph relation

A typed, acyclic evidence-provenance graph relation stays disjoint from mereology. Its nodes and references are typed by their current FPF kind: claim or target use, evidence episteme or evidence record, publication or carrier reference, provenance relation, evidence-producing or evidence-interpreting U.Work, U.RoleAssignment for producer, interpreter, verifier, or source-maintenance holder when that assignment is current, U.MethodDescription or method trace when the evidence depends on method, observation or evaluation record, and relevance window. Edge vocabulary is small and normative: evidences, derivedFrom, measuredBy, interpretedBy, usedCarrier, producedByWork, maintainedByRoleAssignment, happenedBefore (temporal), etc. Practitioner view: it is the “because-graph”: every claim answers “because of these evidence items and carriers, produced or interpreted by this work under this assignment, using that method where relevant, within this time window.”

#Evidence relations (two relations, two flavours)

• verifiedBy — links a claim to formal evidence (proof obligations, static guarantees, model‑checking records).
• validatedBy — links a claim to empirical evidence (tests, measurements, trials, observations). Both evidence relations terminate in the evidence-provenance graph relation, not in the mereology graph.

#Carrier and source-currentness records

When an episteme composition, publication, compilation, dashboard, generated explanation, or assurance use substantively relies on source carriers, the evidence-provenance path SHALL keep a carrier/source-currentness record: carrier id or source reference, type, version or edition when relevant, date or relevance window, source conditions, provenance relation, and optional part-carrier relation for sub-carriers. When a bounded context needs publication-grade reuse, the record is adapted to that context with vocabulary, unit, identifier, and hash discipline while preserving carrier identity and carrier integrity. Why this matters: it prevents “lost sources” during composition and underwrites reproducibility without mandating any specific tool or preserving one older register name as the governing ontology.

#Scope alignment across Role-Method-Work

• Design-time: MethodDescription is the design-time episteme describing U.Method; evidence relations reference what would constitute proof or test for that method.
• Run-time: dated U.Work occurrences belong here; traces reference which U.Method they enact and cite the methodDescriptionRef used to identify or constrain it and record happenedBefore. Bridging edges are explicit (“this run trace enacts that method under this method-description source”), so scopes never silently mix.

#Evidence-producing work and relying context

The work occurrence that produces, measures, interprets, verifies, publishes, or maintains evidence is modelled separately from the target claim or target use that relies on that evidence. If the same system participates on both sides, the evidence path must still name the distinct work occurrence, role assignment, carrier/provenance relation, relying context, and reopen condition. Reflexive monitoring is admissible only when those relations are explicit; it is not evidence by self-label.

#Gamma-flavour evidence connection points

• Γ_sys (formerly Γ_core): physical properties are evidenced by measurement models, boundary conditions, calibration carriers, and dated observations.
• Episteme composition and publication use: every evidence-provenance node resolves to a carrier/source-currentness record or to an explicitly named evidence episteme, provenance relation, or source-maintenance relation.
• Γ_method: order-sensitive composition; at design-time a Method Instantiation Card (MIC) states Precedes, Choice, Join, and guards; at run-time traces record happenedBefore and point to the U.Method they enact and the methodDescriptionRef they used.
• Γ_time: temporal claims state interval coverage; Monotone Coverage with no unexplained gaps and no unexplained overlaps is required.
• Γ_work: resource spending and yield are evidenced by instrumented carriers (meters, logs) and their methodRef plus methodDescriptionRef; keep resource rosters separate from carrier/source-currentness records.

Practitioner shortcut: If you can answer what carriers, which system, which method, when, the evidence relation is likely sufficient; if any of the four is missing, it is not.

#Authority-reliance use of ordinary A.10 evidence paths

Use this subsection when an authority-looking case is being used as evidence for a reliance claim. The A.10 evidence path is claim-bound: it evidences one named claim or effect for one named work move or reliance move, not "authority" in general. This subsection does not change the A.10 evidence-path EntityOfConcern; it applies the same evidence-provenance graph relation to source-sensitive cases where displays, credentials, copied text, generated text, dashboards, provenance labels, or attestations are being overread. If the work occurrence, gate decision, speech act, commitment, or evidence relation is already recorded in a project-side FPF source, recover and cite that source named by value directly instead of analyzing nearby wording first.

A10-lite is enough for source-finding, orientation, learning, and bounded reversible probes:

Minimum evidence path for routine reliance:

Expanded fields are collected only insofar as they decide the current reliance question. Evidence depth follows consequence severity, reuse, contestability, cross-context movement, and the evidence relation required for the attempted claim. Do not expand a source-finding note into a full evidence dossier, and do not collect every expanded field merely because a carrier is copied, generated, credential-like, provenance-like, or cross-context.

Adversarial misuse guard. Do not let carrier authenticity, provenance, copied approval, generated summary, stale screenshot, credential status view, or dashboard export convert into claim truth or currentness. Treat each as a rival explanation to test against issuer or source-maintenance role assignment, method trace or work trace, time window, and relying context.

Data-minimization and privacy boundary. Preserve minimum sufficient evidence relation for the intended reliance use. Use redacted, hashed, scoped, or role-mediated carrier refs when raw evidence would expose personal identity, access tokens, cryptographic proof payloads, tenant identifiers, security logs, incident details, internal release metadata, audit trails, privileged review-role names, sensitive model provenance, or sensitive data provenance. Redaction does not create source relation; it must preserve enough recoverability for the relying context.

Case repairs:

If the evidence path is incomplete, A.10 reports evidence-path state and source-currentness status, not work or reliance evidence relation for the attempted claim or effect. Possible dispositions include source-finding only, reopen original carrier, request issuer or status verification, refresh dashboard query or API query, mark stale or contested, narrow the attempted P2W class or reliance claim, proceed only with a reversible local probe under an explicit work plan when a work change is being attempted, or block the unsupported work claim or reliance claim.

Broken-source repair assignment. If the relying actor cannot recover or verify the source relation, assign the repair to the accountable project-side responsibility assignment: issuer or performer, verifier assignment, status-source relation, evidence-producing work assignment or evidence-producing system, gate-decision source, role-assignment source, status source, or boundary source. The A.10 result should name the missing source and blocked use rather than making the relying actor reconstruct a source they cannot issue or verify.

Repeated missing-source indicator. If the same visible carrier family repeatedly returns stale, contested, no-source, or no-currentness A.10 results, record a source-relation repair action: instrument the source, expose decision-source refs, add currentness checks and status checks, preserve claim-bound source links for generated or copied outputs, require credential views to show status windows and currentness windows, require model documentation and data documentation to expose intended-use and evaluation-condition fields, or require provenance labels and attestation labels to name their bounded claim type. Repetition is an indicator that the source relation or display needs repair; it is not a reason to make each acting user rebuild the evidence path manually.

Display guidance for evidence and currentness: an evidence or status display should show the claim or effect, evidence carrier, source-maintenance role assignment, reference or link named by value, time window, freshness, relying context, and unsupported work use, reliance use, claim, or effect. A display that can only show source availability should say so; it must not imply approval, permission, gate passage, work occurrence, or assurance.

Incident-learning fields for evidence and currentness overread: visible carrier or publication face, intended claim or effect, missing evidence-path field, evidence carrier named by value, source-maintenance role assignment, method trace, work trace, and time relation needed, rival explanation that made the overread plausible, current safe disposition, and upstream repair action for instrumentation, source refs, status, currentness, claim-bound source links, credential view, model documentation, data documentation, or provenance and attestation label.

Contestability and redress relation: when an evidence path or currentness path affects person or team status, access, responsibility, a compliance relation, or a release decision, the A.10 result should name the disputed claim, evidence carrier, source-maintenance role assignment, verifier or status source, freshness or revocation source, privacy-minimized evidence ref, safe interim disposition, and review or redress relation. A disputed display remains contested until the source-order or currentness question is resolved.

Positive repaired evidence-use statement. When the source relation is complete, write the smallest source-backed evidence-use statement: named claim or effect, evidence carrier and source-maintenance role assignment, method trace or work trace, time window, currentness, evidence relation, and the named work use or reliance use for which the evidence relation is bounded. The downstream use stays inside that scope, without treating evidence relation as approval, permission, gate passage, work occurrence, or assurance.

What this does not authorize: A.10 does not approve, authorize work or reliance, pass a gate, release, create permission, create a commitment, assign a role, record a work occurrence, or raise assurance. It supplies the evidence path and evidence-use classification that A.15, A.6, B.3, A.21 gate-decision sources, A.20 constraint-validity sources, A.2.9 speech-act sources, A.2.8 commitment sources, A.15.1 work-occurrence sources, or another governingPatternRef or authoritySourceRef named by value may consume.

#Local evidence-use classifier and RelianceDisposition for source-looking evidence uses

Use this subsection when a visible source is being treated as evidence for a claim, act, work move, gate, release, review claim, assurance use, or problem-side P2W use. The first A.10 move is to recover the evidence kind and the bounded evidence use. Broad source words such as source, metric, confidence, conformant, safe, ready, certified, approval, or permission are only recovery prompts; they do not name the evidence relation by themselves.

This subsection uses a local reliance-use classifier, not a Core evidence-kind ontology. Its practical gain is a smaller next move: recover the evidence relation, name the bounded evidence use and unsupported attempted use, then either stay inside A.10 or apply the governing pattern for the stronger claim being made. It is not a required project review step and does not ask the practitioner to inspect every source-looking carrier or display.

Section role: the first table is an A.10 recognition aid, the RelianceDisposition table is a minimum local record aid, and the worked source-overread slices are regression slices and review slices. They are not project checklists, a required sequence, a new evidence ontology, or a general source classifier. Use only the row that answers the attempted evidence use, then stop when the bounded evidence relation, unsupported attempted use, and reopen condition are clear. This local section keeps the attempted use inside the A.10 evidence relation; it does not create an extra SEMIO authority or cross-pattern relation vocabulary.

Affordability card: orientation or source-finding remains a cue and stops here; bounded reliance states one bounded evidence use, unsupported attempted use, window, and reopen condition; threshold reliance applies the minimum governing pattern only when the B.3 material-reliance threshold is met: behavior, safety, release, compliance, public or protocol behavior, access, resource allocation, people status, team status, operational action, or controlled-object regulation would materially change. Plain wording remains ordinary unless it changes bounded use, source relation, evidence, gate, assurance, work, decision, or neighboring governing-pattern claim.

Cheap stop: if a bounded claim, current carrier, evidence path, window, bounded evidence use, unsupported attempted use, and reopen trigger are present, and there is no assurance claim, gate relation, work relation, control-bearing relation, release relation, or met B.3 material-reliance threshold, stay in A.10. Do not open B.3, A.21, B.2.5, or a broad evidence pack merely because the source looks official, quantitative, generated, credentialed, or safety-related.

Common wrong first classification: a visible source is approval, permission, safety, or readiness. First honest entry: recover the A.10 evidence path for one bounded claim or use; approval, permission, safety, readiness, gate passage, and work authority stay with their governing patterns when those relations are being claimed.

Plain move palette: RelianceDisposition=pass means proceed only inside the bounded evidence use; RelianceDisposition=degrade means use only a narrower or reversible version; RelianceDisposition=abstain means do not decide yet; RelianceDisposition=reopen means changed or contested evidence relation defeated the previous evidence-use classification; RelianceDisposition=evidence-needed means ask for the named missing evidence at the named decision point; RelianceDisposition=safety-case-required means apply B.3 because the B.3 material-reliance threshold is met; RelianceDisposition=blocked-current-use means block the current attempted use until the evidence path or governing source relation changes.

For A.10 use, RelianceDisposition is a local disposition over the evidence path and the bounded reliance use. Outside a table column already headed RelianceDisposition, write the qualified form RelianceDisposition=... and bind it to the named attempted use, currentness and window when relevant, bounded evidence use, unsupported attempted use, and reopen or stop condition; it is not CV.Status, GateDecision, selector result, or ProblemCard@Context state.

Observed-effect or consequence evidence may be used only for what happened or is credibly recorded. If the attempted use says the source caused, prevented, would have changed, or is responsible for that effect, leave ordinary A.10 reliance and open C.28 plus any relevant evidence, work, or assurance relation.

If a proxy marker, benchmark, confidence value, dashboard metric, or score becomes the primary driver for action, release, resource allocation, people status, team status, or P2W priority, check whether the claim being made also raises an E.13 proxy-to-objective question. Do not open E.13 for every metric; open it only when the proxy is being used as the target or decision driver.

If publication or observation of a cue changes the represented situation or represented source condition, recover the probe-coupled boundary before treating the cue as passive evidence. This sentence does not import quantum-like vocabulary; it only prevents passive-evidence overread for dashboards, warnings, labels, and public status displays.

Minimum contest relation with possible redress: a contest relation exists only when the affected party or accountable review role can identify the disputed claim or source, affected use or harm, accountable review role, evidence or argument allowed in challenge, possible disposition change, outcome record, and reopen trigger. A feedback channel, complaint form, or appeal label without those recoverable values is not enough to change the disposition.

Affected-party contestable minimum: even when raw evidence stays review-role-mediated, the contesting party must be able to see enough of the claim, source class, disposition, affected use, accountable role, and allowed challenge evidence to challenge the result. Privacy, security, or privilege can narrow disclosure; they cannot erase the challengeable minimum while still claiming contest or redress.

False-negative reliance guard: a blocked, abstained, or evidence-needed use is not final if challenge evidence, missing affected-party evidence, changed source, changed representation, or redress can materially change the disposition. If refusal is based on missing evidence, name the missing evidence kind and decision point rather than closing the dispute by vagueness.

Sensitive evidence boundary: use scoped, hashed, redacted, or role-mediated evidence refs when raw carriers would expose personal data, secrets, tokens, privileged logs, tenant identifiers, incident details, security-sensitive traces, or unnecessary identities. A redacted path must still preserve enough recoverability for the relied-on claim, disposition, and contest relation.

Worked source-overread slices:

#Causal evidence relation values in evidence paths

Evidence graph paths used for causal-use claims must carry the C.28-governed CausalEvidenceSupportBasis value without redefining causal estimands or causal-use authority. In this subsection, SupportBasis is a C.28 field-value name; it is not the loose FPF prose word "support".

The C.28 values that A.10 may carry in an evidence path are:

observationalAssociationSupportBasis
interventionalActionSupportBasis
realizedCounterfactualSampleSupportBasis
identifiedCounterfactualEstimateSupportBasis
simulationOnlyCounterfactualOutputBasis

[A.10](/generated/patterns/A.10) consumes this value set from [C.28](/generated/patterns/C.28); it does not add causalAssumptionOnlySupport or noCausalEvidenceSupport as causal-evidence values. Assumption-only and no-evidence-use cases are represented by causal assumptions, a [C.28](/generated/patterns/C.28) causal-use verdict, bounded use, unsupported attempted use, or abstain in [C.28](/generated/patterns/C.28)/[B.3](/generated/patterns/B.3), not by a second causal-evidence vocabulary.

No unsupported causal-use shift:

observational-association evidence -> interventional-action claim requires CausalIdentificationProfile.
interventional-action evidence -> counterfactual-comparison claim requires CausalIdentificationProfile for
  identifiedCounterfactualEstimateSupportBasis, CounterfactualSamplingRealizabilityProfile for
  realizedCounterfactualSampleSupportBasis, or bounded-use treatment.
Simulation-only counterfactual output may be used only for the bounded claim stated for that simulator output when model assumptions, validation, bounded use, and unsupported attempted use are declared. It does not become interventional evidence or realized counterfactual sample evidence by vocabulary, validation, or evidence-role relabeling alone.

Evidence-path micro-examples:

What changes in practice: an evidence path can show that a carrier evidences a causal-use claim, but it must also show the causal evidence relation value and the relevant [C.28](/generated/patterns/C.28) references when the claim changes from observation to intervention or from intervention to counterfactual comparison.

What this does not authorize: [A.10](/generated/patterns/A.10) does not identify causal effects, create an estimand, certify target-trial emulation, or decide counterfactual sampling realizability; it stores and makes recoverable the evidence graph path and the [C.28](/generated/patterns/C.28) causal-evidence refs needed by [C.28](/generated/patterns/C.28) and [B.3](/generated/patterns/B.3).

#Archetypal Grounding

#Conformance Checklist

Practitioner’s audit (non‑normative, quick): For any claim, ask What carriers? Which system? Which method? When? If any answer is missing, A.10 is not satisfied.

#Consequences

#Rationale and SoTA alignment

• Metrology & assurance. The requirement to name quantities, units, uncertainty, calibration carriers reflects long‑standing metrology practice and modern assurance cases: numbers are only comparable when their measurement models are stated.
• Knowledge provenance. The evidence-provenance graph relation and carrier/source-currentness record embody post-2015 best practices in provenance for epistemes and their carriers: keep a complete, machine-checkable trail from claims to carriers; separate provenance from part-whole.
• Temporal reasoning. Monotone coverage with no unexplained gaps and no unexplained overlaps aligns with temporal knowledge graph practice and avoids impossible histories.
• Holonic parsimony. By drawing a firewall between mereology (A.14) and provenance, A.10 prevents semantic leakage and keeps the holarchy well‑typed.
• Role–Method–Work clarity. Evidence relationing explicitly rides on A.15: roles act via methods specified at design‑time and produce work observed at run‑time. This keeps agency, policy, and execution disentangled yet connected.
• Credential, provenance, attestation, status-register, and generated-source currentness. Verifiable-credential and digital-identity practice separates issuer or trust root, holder binding, proof result, status result, revocation, effective window, audience, and relying context. Some bounded contexts also treat a register entry or status-source entry as the source that creates or changes role assignment, status assertion, permission, duty, or gate state; a credential view, pass, badge, dashboard cell, API response, screenshot, or certificate excerpt is then a publication of that source, not automatically the source itself. C2PA content provenance plus SLSA and in-toto attestations separate bounded origin, history, build, and process claims from truth, approval, release, safety, gate passage, permission, or assurance; their consumer-side verifier or policy acceptance rule is part of the relying context, not implied by source-carrier presence. LLM citation and generated-explanation practice requires claim-bound attribution alignment before operative claims are relied on. A.10 adopts issuer, holder, verifier, status, currentness recoverability, status-source recoverability, and claim-bound attribution as evidence-path invariants, adapts credential practice, provenance practice, attestation practice, model documentation, data documentation, register-backed status display, and generated-explanation practice as FPF source-side role-assignment values and carrier-relation inputs, and rejects visual display, copied text, generated text, provenance mark, credential display, register excerpt, or attestation form as evidence of an operative action invitation, gate, role assignment, status assertion, work occurrence, assurance, or bounded work effect without source relation named by value.

Practical result from that cited practice: provenance, attestation, credential, status-register, and generated-source practice rejects the shortcut that provenance means truth, safety, release, permission, or assurance. The local A.10 result is bounded origin, history, build, holder or status currentness, generated-claim source mapping, bounded evidence use, unsupported attempted use, and reopen when the verifier, trust model, status or currentness rule, source mapping, or source-order relation changes.

#Relations

• Builds on: A.1 Holonic Foundation; A.3.4 Transformation; A.10 evidence-use and provenance relation discipline; A.14 Advanced Mereology; A.15 Role–Method–Work Alignment; A.2 and A.2.1 for role values and role-assignment relations; C.2.1 and E.17 for episteme, publication, carrier, and view separation.
• Constrains / used by: current composition, transformation, method, temporal, and work operators only when the governing pattern for that operator is named by value; B.1.1 (Dependency Graph & Proofs) where its current dependency-graph claims remain active.
• Enables: B.3 Trust Calculus (R inputs, CL inputs, auditability); B.4 Canonical Evolution Loop (clean DesignRunTag bridges).
• Coordinates with: C.28 when an evidence path is used for a causal-use relation; A.10 carries the evidence-provenance path, while C.28 governs the causal-use question, CausalEvidenceSupportBasis value, identification, realizability, bounded use, and unsupported attempted use.
• Coordinates with: A.2.4 when old evidence-role or status-role wording around an episteme needs first-use evidence-use or status-use relation slots before the full A.10 evidence-provenance graph relation is written.
• Coordinates with: A.15 for work or reliance disposition, A.6 for mixed boundary wording, B.3 for assurance, A.21 for OperationalGate(profile), GateDecision, and DecisionLogRef, A.20 for ConstraintValidity status or witness, A.2.9 for speech-act refs, A.2.8 for commitments, and A.15.1 for work occurrences. A.10 supplies evidence paths for those sources; it does not create their gate decision, commitment, role effect, status effect, work-occurrence, assurance, bounded work effect, or bounded reliance effect.

#Older source text interpretation and neighboring-pattern notes

Older source texts may use names such as manifest, release manifest, creator, observer, symbol register, SCR, RSCR, MIC, or evidence path without the current FPF distinctions. Treat those names as recovery prompts, not as live vocabulary to copy unchanged.

Use these recoveries:

• a source register used for evidence carriers becomes a carrier/source-currentness record;
• a release-context source register becomes a context-adapted carrier/source-currentness record when the bounded context, identifiers, and hashes matter for publication or release use;
• an internal creator or observer used as evidencer becomes evidence-producing work, evidence-interpreting work, source-maintenance role assignment, verifier assignment, or quote-only source wording according to the claim being made;
• a method instantiation note is a method relation or work relation only when it states the U.Method, the method-description source, ordering relation when relevant, and work-trace relation;
• resource rosters in Γ_work remain separate from evidence-carrier registers; cite meter, log, or observation carriers through the evidence-provenance graph.

When an older source text also claims approval, permission, gate passage, assurance, causal authority, measured comparability, representation shift, or publication-face effect, keep A.10 to the evidence-provenance graph relation and apply the neighboring governing pattern for that extra claim.

#Evidence carriers for quantum-like statements

Use A.10 when a quantum-like statement needs evidence rather than only a local modeling note. The practical question is not "is this quantum-like source impressive?" but "which carrier evidences which minimal claim, under which time window and method?"

Evidence-relation checks:

1. State the minimal state, probe, export, or viability claim being evidenced.
2. Pin the concrete carriers: source, trace, dashboard export, report, observation, metric, work result, model output, interview, survey, or incident record.
3. State the evidence-producing role and method: who or what produced the carrier, by which method, probe, measurement, or work act.
4. State the time window, decay condition, and reopen condition.
5. State what the carrier does not show, including the most relevant rival explanation that remains plausible.
6. Choose the next pattern: stay in A.10 for carrier evidence relation, apply B.3 for assurance claims, apply C.16 for measurement admissibility, apply F.9 for bridge or export loss, or apply a C.26.* pattern for the remaining probe, state, or envelope question.

For probe-coupled, distributed-state, bridge-loss, measurement-frame, or viability-envelope statements, include at least:

Useful outputs:

• a local evidence note when the claim only guides discussion;
• an evidence-provenance record or context-adapted carrier/source-currentness entry when the claim enters a published assertion;
• a B.3 assurance tuple when the claim will feed readiness, audit, release, compliance, or comparative assurance;
• a neighboring-pattern note when the carrier shows only ordinary measurement, bridge loss, or work enactment.

Do not let the label quantum-like carry evidence weight by itself. The evidence graph carries the claim; the math lens only explains what representational mistake the evidence is being used to avoid.

#C.29 mathematical-lens use relation

If a mathematical lens needs evidence relation, write the evidence path, source currentness, provenance, and any model-card or datasheet evidence use in A.10. A C.29 output may state only the C.29-local lens-use value for the mathematical-lens use claim; it is not an evidence path, currentness proof, provenance record, or evidence-carrier substitute. Assurance or release confidence goes to B.3; measurement construction or comparability goes to C.16.

#A.10:End

Last Updated: 2026-06-11 — this section last modified in upstream FPF commit 20c8a0a5 (github.com/ailev/FPF)