CC-A19IV-1 | Is one already-declared base substrate or source-set entry point or set-result entry point named explicitly? | The interpretive view floats free of the line it is supposed to help read. | Cite the base substrate or the recoverable source-set entry point or set-result entry point. |
CC-A19IV-2 | Is the interpretive view explicitly docked to existing A.6.3 / E.17.0 law? | The text presents itself as one autonomous local theory of views. | State the docking explicitly or apply the pattern that really defines the missing view law. |
CC-A19IV-3 | Does the line preserve the same EntityOfConcern and keep the base substrate as semantic center? | The interpretive prose retargets the EntityOfConcern or repairs the substrate in place. | Reopen under A.19.SOURCE-SET-SPACE-SUBSTRATE, A.6.4, or the appropriate neighboring pattern. |
CC-A19IV-4 | Are the current source set, any active set result, and any active derived view or base palette recoverable? | The interpretive reading hides the base palette, base source/result, or active derived set result behind one fuller visible overlay. | Restore the missing recoverability fields. |
CC-A19IV-5 | Is the active profile chosen honestly: thin interpretation or atlas interpretation? | Atlas language is used by reflex, or the line needs atlas interpretation but never says so. | State the profile explicitly and justify why thin interpretation is or is not sufficient. |
CC-A19IV-6 | If atlas form is active, is the composite atlas-form interpretation declaration complete? | Several views, spaces, declared map refs, or qualifiers are being used, but TypedSetViews, cited spaces, declared map refs, qualifiers, or the reason thin interpretation is insufficient remain hidden. | Publish the missing atlas-form interpretation declaration or step back to thin interpretation. |
CC-A19IV-7 | Are interpretive qualifiers really substrate-side only and reused from the substrate side? | Metrics, transitions, declared map refs, or distortion notes silently change the base relation or posture, or become mandatory core everywhere. | Keep them as foregrounded qualifiers only, or reopen the substrate declaration. |
CC-A19IV-8 | If TraditionAtlasView is used, is it kept as one G.2 specialization rather than the common family head? | The local specialization is treated as if every interpretive case were already palette-first atlas work. | Restore the split between DeclaredSubstrateAtlasView and TraditionAtlasView. |
CC-A19IV-9 | Does the line stay out of publication and policy work? | The prose starts deciding who survives, what is published, or what is shipped. | Split the line and apply G.5, G.10, C.19, or C.24 to those questions. |
CC-A19IV-10 | Could a cold reader choose thin interpretation versus atlas interpretation and fill one interpretive view declaration without hidden invention? | The reader still needs surrounding memo knowledge to know which head to use, what fields matter, or why atlas is or is not needed. | Fill the compact interpretive view declaration from 4.12 and state why thin interpretation is enough or why atlas interpretation is necessary. |
CC-A19IV-11 | Is the inspection question explicit enough to tell the reader what this view helps inspect now? | The view mostly restates the base theory, but the practical inspection load stays unnamed. | State the inspection question directly and keep the base line recoverable beside it. |
CC-A19IV-12 | When specialization, naming repair, publication, or policy becomes the next question, is the governing neighbor explicit? | The interpretive prose silently drifts into G.2, F.18, A.6.P, G.5, G.10, C.19, or C.24 without naming the boundary. | Split the line and cite the governing neighbor instead of stretching interpretive-view prose across that boundary. |