🧩

CC-EXP-COMPOSE-01 — RRAP × QMAP × Assessment Assertion Composition & Boundary Test v0.1

Experiment ID: CC-EXP-COMPOSE-01

Version: 0.1

Date: 19 September 2026

Targets: RRAP v0.1 Candidate · QMAP v0.1 Candidate · Assessment Assertion Profile v0.1 Candidate · Commons Non-Promotion Rule

Standing: INTERNAL — EXECUTED COMPOSITION / BOUNDARY TEST. NO PUBLICATION OR IMPLEMENTATION AUTHORISED.

Question

Do the three admitted Commons candidate profiles compose into a coherent semantic system without collapsing their responsibilities or requiring a new universal ontology?

Executive result

STRONG PASS — THE THREE PROFILES FORM A COHERENT, ORTHOGONAL SEMANTIC KERNEL CANDIDATE.

They are not a sequence and not a stack.

They answer three independent questions about semantic artefacts:

  • RRAP: What role is this representation/evidence item playing relative to a subject/proposition?
  • QMAP: What relationship is being asserted between independently identified resources, for what purpose and on what basis?
  • Assessment Assertion Profile: What did an assessment conclude about a subject/aspect against an explicit basis?

The Commons Non-Promotion Rule constrains transitions/inferences among all three.

Composition fixture — external requirement to operational evidence

Boundary tests

C1 — RRAP role becomes QMAP relation

REJECT.

REFERENCE/DESIGNED/IMPLEMENTED/OBSERVED are roles, not source-target mapping predicates.

PASS.

C2 — QMAP relation becomes RRAP role

REJECT.

A mapping relation does not define how the mapping artefact is relied upon.

PASS.

C3 — QMAP mapping proves conformance

REJECT.

Requirement→control mapping may define coverage/alignment but Assessment Assertion is separately required.

PASS.

C4 — RRAP IMPLEMENTED proves conformance

REJECT.

PASS.

C5 — RRAP OBSERVED evidence becomes assessment outcome

REJECT.

Evidence informs assessment; outcome is basis-relative.

PASS.

C6 — Assessment outcome changes RRAP role

Not automatically. Governance/process may create a new role assignment where appropriate.

PASS.

C7 — Assessment of QMAP assertion

Allowed. A QMAP Mapping Assertion can itself be the subject of an Assessment Assertion.

PASS.

C8 — RRAP role on Assessment Assertion

Allowed where useful; e.g. published external assessment may be REFERENCE to another process.

Does not alter assessment semantics.

PASS.

C9 — Mapping between Assessment Assertions

Allowed through QMAP if a real relationship is being asserted.

PASS.

C10 — Same provenance shared across profiles

Allowed through PROV-compatible provenance without merging profile semantics.

PASS.

Multi-domain fixture

The same composition survives:

  • regulation→control→implementation→evidence→assessment;
  • clinical guideline→care design→treatment→measurement→assessment;
  • software standard→design→deployment→runtime→validation;
  • building code→design→construction→inspection→finding;
  • vendor claim→technology alignment→customer configuration→observation→assessment.

PASS.

Orthogonality finding

The three profiles are best modelled as orthogonal semantic projections, not layers.

A resource may simultaneously participate in:

  • an RRAP role assignment;
  • one or more QMAP assertions;
  • one or more Assessment Assertions.

No profile owns the resource.

Kernel candidate

The diagram is conceptual, not implementation architecture.

Non-Promotion hostile tests

  • REFERENCE → DESIGNED automatically? NO
  • MAPS_TO → SAME_AS? NO
  • IMPLEMENTED → CONFORMANT? NO
  • OBSERVED → TRUE? NO
  • ASSESSED-CONFORMANT → ACCEPTED? NO
  • PUBLIC → AUTHORITATIVE? NO
  • CERTIFIED → RUNTIME-ADMISSIBLE? NO

STRONG PASS.

Is a fourth core profile required?

No missing semantic responsibility was exposed by the composition fixture itself.

Potential lifecycle/change concerns cut across all three and should be tested separately before becoming another profile.

Decision

CC-EXP-COMPOSE-01 — STRONG COMPOSITION PASS.

  1. RRAP, QMAP and Assessment Assertion Profile compose coherently.
  2. Treat them as orthogonal semantic profiles, not sequential layers.
  3. Commons Non-Promotion Rule is a cross-cutting governance invariant.
  4. Reuse external standards/domain semantics.
  5. No universal Commons ontology is required.
  6. No fourth core profile is justified by composition alone.
  7. Advance to Change/Supersession/Revalidation test.
  8. No public or implementation consequence.

Linked