CC-A19SS-1 | Is the line really declaring one substrate-bearing relation rather than only CharacteristicSpace, publication metadata, or policy? | The line only names a space object, or only publishes, ships, or retains something, with no explicit source, ref, relation, or posture stack. | Move to A.19, G.5, G.10, C.19, or C.24 as appropriate. |
CC-A19SS-2 | Is the active source set recoverable enough for the current case? | Only a vague family word such as front or archive remains, and several same-family source sets or set results are live with no way to tell which one is meant. | Add the concrete declared source set or set result id or cite the neighboring governing pattern that makes the source/set-result unique. |
CC-A19SS-3 | Do SearchSpaceRef and OutcomeSpaceRef both resolve to declared A.19 CharacteristicSpace, and is SpaceRefRelationKind explicit? | One or both refs are vague, or the line leaves the same-space versus cross-space question to inference. | Restore the two refs and declare sameDeclaredSpaceAs or distinctDeclaredSpaceFrom explicitly. |
CC-A19SS-4 | Is the source-to-outcome relation explicit in direction, mode, and carrier? | The line hides the relation in one umbrella phrase such as projection, portfolio, or maps into, with no explicit carrier. | Rewrite into the canonical substrate form and state direction, mode, and carrier. |
CC-A19SS-5 | Is the active qualification posture explicit and honest? | The line is qualified in effect, but the posture is unstated or all non-transparent cases are blurred into one generic loss story. | Declare the governing posture token and any needed note; if that cannot be done honestly, keep the line informative only. |
CC-A19SS-6 | Are conditional and qualifier fields used only when they really do work? | Composition, derivation, base-palette, declared map ref, metric, transition, or bridge qualifiers are fabricated everywhere or silently become core. | Remove unused qualifiers; keep only the fields the current case actually depends on. |
CC-A19SS-7 | If DescriptorMapRef or DistanceDefRef is active, does the text say they realize or qualify the relation rather than replace the space ref? | The representation or metric layer is treated as if it were the declared search-side or outcome-side space. | Re-state the docking rule and keep the two space refs visible. |
CC-A19SS-8 | Does the line stay out of publication and policy work? | The prose starts deciding shortlist identity, selector outcome, shipping closure, or live-pool/enactment policy. | Split the line and move those downstream decisions to their governing patterns. |
CC-A19SS-9 | Can the line be rewritten into one canonical substrate form without invention? | The line still depends on hidden assumptions or unresolved candidates. | Keep it as a working gloss or repair the missing recovery before reuse. |
CC-A19SS-10 | Could a cold reader take the next lawful declaration step from this line without surrounding memo help? | The line still speaks only in umbrella words such as space, projection, or portfolio, and the reader cannot tell what to fill next. | Use the substrate worksheet from 4.12 or rewrite into one canonical substrate form before reuse. |
CC-A19SS-11 | When the next question is interpretive-view, publication, or policy, is the next governing pattern explicit? | The text keeps talking as if substrate, interpretation, publication, and policy were one layer, so the reader cannot tell where to continue. | Split the line and cite A.19.DECLARED-SUBSTRATE-INTERPRETIVE-VIEW, G.5, G.10, C.19, or C.24 as the next governing pattern. |
CC-A19SS-12 | Does the current use claim only the breadth its declared posture and qualifiers actually license? | The prose implies universal geometric closure or one universal heavy-qualification story, but the declared posture or qualifiers stay narrower, uncertain, learned/adaptive, or case-bound. | Narrow the claim explicitly or add the missing posture/interpretive qualifiers that make the broader claim honest. |