Status: Exploratory and non-normative. These cases are executed discriminating examples. They are evidence, not promotion outcomes.

This corpus is the program’s first method object. Each case states the configuration, the hypothesis it tests, the result, and the finding it supports. Further cases may be added; CASE-01 through CASE-03 start the critical path. CASE-04 is a planned discriminator, not yet executed.

CASE-01 Operationalization without a named Regulation role

Tests: H-GC-01, GOV-D05, GOV-D17

Configuration. Structure G issues Directive D1 governing Structure S on qualifier Q. Structure S has Norm N1 whose structure is S and whose qualifier is Q. No Mechanism is labeled Regulation. N1 activation and assertion are evaluable. No Supervision or Compliance Mechanism is declared.

Question. Does the absence of a named Regulation role prevent governance operationalization?

Result. D1 still opens scope. N1 still states an evaluable constraint inside that scope. The DNA grammar functions. What is missing is an accountable Mechanism that produced N1, adapted it, or returned feedback. Governance is not empty; role topology is incomplete.

Falsifier that did not occur. A case in which no Norm can exist unless a Mechanism carries the Regulation label.

Consequence. Missing Regulation is not, by itself, a DNA-grammar failure. Treating it as normative conformance (GOV-D17) would require a role signature that GSM does not yet have. H-GC-01 is weakened: the candidate chain is a useful analysis of accountability, not a necessary condition for a Directive and Norm to exist.

CASE-02 Produced DNA that is not activated

Tests: H-DP-01, GOV-D06, GOV-D36

Configuration. Mechanism M emits Norm candidate N-cand through an Effector. An Ascription A-draft is created in DRAFT. No submit, approve, or activate transition is performed by M or by any other authority. N-cand is therefore not in-effect.

Question. Is emission of a DNA candidate the same relation as authorization or activation?

Result. Causal origin is attributable to M. Lifecycle status remains DRAFT. No governed constraint is in effect. Production occurred; governance did not become effective.

Falsifier that did not occur. A model in which emitting a candidate necessarily creates an in-effect Norm.

Consequence. Production occurrence and lifecycle authority are distinct relations. GOV-D06 cannot collapse them. A producer may emit a candidate without receiving delegated approve or activate authority.

CASE-03 One Impact, two opposed evaluations

Tests: H-CM-02, H-CM-03, GOV-D31, GOV-D35

Configuration. Operation of Mechanism M in Structure S changes capacity available to subject A and subject B. From A’s purpose the change is beneficial Value. From B’s purpose the same change is an Adverse condition. No separate event is required to explain the two evaluations.

Question. Are Value and Adverse condition distinct Impacts, or evaluations of one Impact relative to purpose and subject?

Result. One consequence, two evaluations. Splitting the event into two Impacts hides the common referent. Treating Value or Adverse condition as the event itself cannot explain the disagreement.

Falsifier that did not occur. A case that requires Value to exist with no consequence-like referent, or that cannot share one Impact across opposed evaluations.

Consequence. Impact can serve as a common referent for opposed evaluations (H-CM-02 survives this case). Value, Cost, and Adverse condition are not forced into a subtype hierarchy. Need remains an open evaluative hypothesis (H-CM-03, SH-15): this case does not show that Need is required, and it does not show that Need is unnecessary.

CASE-04 Derived generic Mechanisms without auto-activated DNA

Status. Planned. Not evidence until executed.

Tests: H-GC-10, H-GC-11, H-GC-12, H-DP-07, GOV-D38

Intended configuration. Governor G, governed S, qualifier Q, and Directive.purpose == Norm.structure are already present. No Governance, Regulation, or Supervision Mechanism is declared. An implementation derives generic Mechanisms from that information only.

Question. Can those derived Mechanisms make production and the concern chain traceable without activating DNA and without inventing information not already in GSM?

Discriminators to record when executed.

1. Derivation succeeds from present information only (H-GC-12).
2. Emission by a derived Governance or Regulation Mechanism remains a production occurrence, not activation (H-DP-07, CASE-02).
3. The concern path is recoverable from the derived chain (H-GC-11).
4. Supervision-as-evaluation does not settle Compliance (H-GC-03).

Teleological test applied by these cases

The same topology can change its justified evaluation when purpose changes (CASE-03). The same production topology can fail to govern when activation is withheld (CASE-02). Teleology is used here as that test, not as a causal category.