Sankalp, and all: the eleven rows in my outline are the last numbered
version
published, and four messages have amended them without renumbering. Before
anyone maps them onto a corpus, here is the table as it stands, with each
row
citing where it came from and what changed. Two rows are open and marked.

The record, for reference

  state                 pass | fail | not-exercised | inconclusive | void
  cause               required on the three non-verdict states, absent on
the two
                           verdict states
  other-verdict     unknown | possible-not-demonstrated |
demonstrated(<ref>) |
                           foreclosed(<constraint set>, <domain>)
                            read against the record's own state: the other
verdict of a
                           pass is a fail, of a fail is a pass
  discrimination    unknown | demonstrated(<evidence ref>)

unknown is the default on both qualifiers and no value is assertable without
the artifact that carries it.

Evidence object, four slots:

  changed      input artifact | checker rule | constraint
  fixed            named, not implied: checker identity, constraint set,
domain
  projection    verdict | verdict and fired-rule list
  delta           the concrete change

The rejection table

  1  a non-verdict state with no cause
  0020, unchanged
  2  void with not_applicable, out_of_scope or withheld            0025,
unchanged
  3  not-exercised with integrity-failure
     0025, unchanged
  4  a confinement control that failed while the check ran,
     with any state but void
          0020, unchanged
  5  a declared exclusion with any state but not-exercised        0020,
unchanged
  6  a non-verdict state carrying either qualifier
narrowed in 0038
  7  a verdict state carrying a cause
     widened in 0038
  8  other-verdict foreclosed with discrimination demonstrated  now on both

                       verdict states
  9  discrimination demonstrated with other-verdict unknown
     or possible-not-demonstrated
      0033, reworded
 10  foreclosed without a constraint set and a domain                now on
both
                                                               verdict
states
 11  an asserted value without its evidence reference, on
     either field, foreclosed included
        extended, 0038
 12  discrimination demonstrated citing an evidence object
     whose changed slot is the checker
   new, 0036

What changed, and why, so the diff is readable

Row 6 was "any state but pass carrying either qualifier". The symmetric
field
in 0038 removes the exclusion of fail: a fail can carry both qualifiers, and
"a fail is its own demonstration" is now true by construction rather than
by a
rule, because the field names the verdict the record did not produce.

Row 7 was "pass carrying a cause". As written the table said nothing about a
cause on a fail, and row 1 does not reach it. Widened.

Row 11 absorbs the extension Evgenii asked for in 0038: foreclosed is the
strongest claim in either vocabulary and was the only value other than
unknown
assertable by writing two strings.

Row 12 is the one from 0036: attribution evidence in a discrimination cell.
The 0013 run is attribution and not discrimination, which was my own filing
error and is corrected in 0039.

One candidate row was removed rather than added. "foreclosed over a domain
that
is not the run's domain" is unwritable once the run declares its domain as
an
object and both foreclosed and the fixed slot reference it by identifier,
which
is where Kenne put it in 0040.

Two rows are open and should not be mapped yet

  A  other-verdict demonstrated citing an evidence object whose projection
is
     not the verdict.

Proposed in 0038 and contested in my last message. projection is defined in
0036 as what was compared, not as what moved. Counted at 1e36257, my corpus
has
42 MUST-PASS / MUST-FAIL pairs at one field and in all 42 the verdict and
the
fired-rule list move together, so read literally this row excludes every
real
pair, including the Level A pair 0036 names as the one that qualifies. The
fix
I proposed is to split the slot into compared and moved and have the row
read
moved.

  B  whether a stated delta is bounded to one field.

At one field, MUST-FAIL pairs with different fired-rule lists number 0 in my
corpus. At two fields they number 132. Roel's diagnostics-only
counterexample
is empty or common depending on the answer, and row 9 guards an empty set
or a
large one.

Sankalp: rows 1 to 12 are stable enough to map. A and B are not, and a
mapping
that reports what your 65 codes do with rows 1 to 12, and which of them your
461 vectors cannot express at all, is worth more to us than a complete
mapping
of a table that is still moving.

Nicolás
