Record: CC-TEP-T01 v0.1

Date: 27 September 2026

Standing: EXECUTED COMMONS BOUNDARY / ANTI-DUPLICATION TEST — NO KERNEL CHANGE YET

Input: Transition Evidence Profile (TEP) v1.0

Target: Commons kernel — RRAP + QMAP + Assessment Assertion + Non-Promotion.

Question: Does TEP require Commons to gain a new transition-semantic profile, or can the existing kernel preserve the semantics needed for consequential reconstruction across semantic boundaries?

1. Pre-test hypothesis

TEP requires reconstructability of:

FROM; TO; WHAT HAPPENED; WHY; ACTOR; BASIS/AUTHORITY; EVIDENCE; TIME; CONDITIONS; WHAT FOLLOWED; WHAT WAS PRESERVED; WHAT CHANGED LATER.

Commons already provides:

• RRAP: role of a representation/evidence item relative to a subject/proposition;
• QMAP: explicit purpose/scope/provenance-bearing relationship assertion;
• Assessment Assertion: basis-bound assessment result;
• Non-Promotion: prevents mapping/role/assessment from becoming stronger standing automatically;
• external/domain semantics for event, provenance, authority, time, lifecycle etc.

Hypothesis:

No fourth Commons core profile is required, but TEP may expose a semantic-preservation requirement on QMAP/consumer assessment.

2. Fixture A — exact mapping with lost authority semantics

Source model:

Decision D7 — AUTHORISED_BY → Authority A3

with authority scope S and effective interval T.

Consumer mapping:

Decision D7 — APPROVED_BY → Actor A3

but target semantics do not distinguish actor from authority source/scope/time.

QMAP can record source, target, relation, purpose, scope, provenance and versions.

Question:

Is successful mapping sufficient for TEP reconstruction?

NO.

The target representation loses material transition semantics:

• authority role;
• scope;
• temporal applicability.

Finding: mapping can be syntactically/semantically related yet TEP-lossy for consequential reconstruction.

3. Fixture B — lossy mapping adequate for analytics

Same mapping is used only to count approval interactions for descriptive analytics.

The lost authority-scope semantics are not required for the declared analytical purpose.

PASS FOR DECLARED PURPOSE.

Therefore:

semantic preservation is purpose/reliance-relative, not universally maximal.

TEP does not require every mapping to preserve every source semantic.

4. Fixture C — mapping used for EAA reconstruction

Consumer intends to use the mapped representation to reconstruct/action-test the authority basis of a consequential decision.

Lost authority/scope/time semantics are material.

FAIL FOR DECLARED RELIANCE.

QMAP alone correctly states the mapping but does not itself declare the consumer's broader consequential adequacy.

An Assessment Assertion can assess the QMAP assertion/target representation against an explicit TEP-derived preservation basis.

Existing kernel can represent this.

5. Fixture D — source standing portability

Source authority is legitimate in source context and mapping is exact.

Does TEP allow source standing to become consumer standing?

NO.

Existing CC-R2A-T01 already establishes:

SourceStanding ≠ ConsumerStanding without explicit consumer-applicable basis.

TEP reinforces rather than changes this rule.

6. Fixture E — transformation vs mapping

A transformation converts source artefact A into target B and uses QMAP assertions.

Does QMAP need to become a transformation record to satisfy TEP?

NO.

QMAP already distinguishes mapping from transformation.

The transformation/event belongs to domain semantics/provenance.

TEP requires it to be reconstructable; Commons need not own the process.

7. Fixture F — revision/supersession

Source mapping M1 is later superseded by M2 after ontology/version change.

Can TEP reconstruct what mapping applied at the earlier decision?

YES, IF QMAP identity/version/effective-time/provenance/lifecycle are preserved.

Existing QMAP contract already supports these concerns.

No new transition object required.

8. Fixture G — evidence role changes across boundary

An item is OBSERVED evidence in source context and REFERENCE in consumer context.

Can RRAP represent this without pretending the roles are identical?

YES.

Role assignments remain purpose/context relative.

TEP requires both assignments/contexts to remain attributable.

No RRAP change required.

9. Fixture H — assessment outcome

A mapping is assessed as adequate for architecture analysis.

Hostile promotion:

adequate for architecture analysis → adequate for consequential execution reconstruction.

REJECTED.

Assessment Assertion is basis-bound.

Different intended reliance requires a separately applicable assessment/basis.

Existing kernel + Non-Promotion is sufficient.

10. Anti-duplication result

Does TEP require a new Commons profile such as “Transition Semantic Profile”?

NO.

A fourth profile would duplicate:

• QMAP purpose/scope/provenance;
• Assessment Assertion basis/outcome;
• RRAP role;
• domain event/provenance/lifecycle semantics.

The existing kernel remains orthogonal and sufficient.

11. New clarification earned

TEP exposes one useful Commons guidance concept:

Purpose-Relative Semantic Preservation

A mapping or transformation used across a semantic boundary must preserve, or explicitly expose as lost/conditional, the source semantics material to the declared downstream purpose and reliance.

For consequential reconstruction:

A Commons-supported mapping is TEP-adequate only when the transition semantics material to the declared reconstruction purpose remain recoverable across the mapping, together with provenance, scope, time and applicable standing.

This is a guidance/assessment basis, not a new ontology profile.

12. Semantic preservation states

Candidate assessment vocabulary, not yet admitted as Commons core:

• PRESERVED — material semantics recoverable for declared purpose.
• PRESERVED_WITH_CONDITIONS — recoverable subject to explicit conditions/companion references.
• LOSSY_ACCEPTABLE — semantics lost, but not material to declared purpose.
• LOSSY_MATERIAL — material semantics lost for declared purpose.
• UNDETERMINED — evidence insufficient to assess preservation.

These should be expressed through domain-defined Assessment Assertion outcomes/basis unless repeated use demonstrates need for a Commons vocabulary.

13. Relationship to QMAP

QMAP remains:

What relationship is asserted between source and target, for what purpose/scope and provenance?

TEP-derived preservation assessment asks:

Does that relationship preserve enough material semantics for this downstream reconstruction/reliance?

Do not merge these questions.

14. Relationship to RRAP

RRAP remains:

What role does this representation/evidence play?

TEP does not create new RRAP roles.

15. Relationship to Assessment Assertion

Assessment Assertion is the correct current host for:

• preservation basis;
• subject = mapping/transformation/target representation;
• outcome = domain-defined preservation result;
• evidence/provenance;
• limitations.

This is the main integration point.

16. Relationship to Non-Promotion

TEP strengthens Commons Non-Promotion:

• mapped ≠ equivalent;
• equivalent meaning ≠ same standing;
• preservation for analytics ≠ preservation for execution;
• successful transformation ≠ authoritative/admissible result.

17. Result

STRONG PASS — EXISTING COMMONS KERNEL IS SUFFICIENT.

TEP does not determine the structure of Commons by adding a new core profile.

TEP does create a legitimate semantic requirement that Commons mappings/assessments can express:

purpose-relative preservation of material transition semantics.

18. Architecture consequence

No fourth Commons core profile.

No universal Transition ontology.

No QMAP mandatory Question/Topology object.

Recommended controlled clarification:

1. add TEP as an optional downstream reconstruction/conformance basis;
2. add Purpose-Relative Semantic Preservation guidance to QMAP/Assessment composition;
3. allow Assessment Assertion to assess QMAP/transformations for TEP adequacy;
4. preserve domain-specific authority/event/time semantics rather than pulling them into Commons.

19. Next falsification

Test a concrete cross-boundary chain:

Arqua EAA evidence → customer semantic model, where the customer uses different actor/authority/policy terminology.

Attempt to preserve TEP reconstructability through QMAP + Assessment Assertion without importing Arqua ontology or authority into the customer.

If this passes, the clarification is ready for Commons guidance admission.