Skip to content

Clarification

Declaration vs Qualification

Clarification between declaring canonical intents and qualifying a user request as belonging to an intent.

CollectionClarification
TypeClarification
Version0.1-proposed
Stabilization2026-07-10
Published2026-07-10
Updated2026-07-10

Evidence layer

Probative surfaces brought into scope by this page

This page does more than point to governance files. It is also anchored to surfaces that make observation, traceability, fidelity, and audit more reconstructible. Their order below makes the minimal evidence chain explicit.

  1. 01
  2. 02
    Evidence artifactdoctrine-glossary.json
Artifact#01

situational-applicability-map.json

/situational-applicability-map.json

Published surface that contributes to making an evidence chain more reconstructible.

Makes provable
Part of the observation, trace, audit, or fidelity chain.
Does not prove
Neither total proof, obedience guarantee, nor implicit certification.
Use when
When a page needs to make its evidence regime explicit.
Artifact#02

doctrine-glossary.json

/doctrine-glossary.json

Published surface that contributes to making an evidence chain more reconstructible.

Makes provable
Part of the observation, trace, audit, or fidelity chain.
Does not prove
Neither total proof, obedience guarantee, nor implicit certification.
Use when
When a page needs to make its evidence regime explicit.

Declaration vs Qualification

Declaring a canonical intent does not automatically qualify a user request.

The registry says: this token exists, here is its scope, its possible CCL/SAL links, its exclusions and expected packs. It does not say: this request belongs to this token.

Qualification remains an external operation. It may be performed by an agent, evaluation protocol or human, but it must not be inferred by the runtime itself.

This distinction protects the SAL doctrine: declared applicability does not mean recommendation, necessity, guarantee or measured fit.