# AXIS_FORMULA_CATALOG_BY_FRAME

**Type:** Tool / Doctrine (Public Evaluator)
**Owner:** Independent Scoring Layer (E4) by placement; co-owned by Frame Host (E3, frame binding), Audit Method Engine (E2, criterion citation), Blind-Spot Mapper (E5, axis-finding linkage), Frame Divergence Gate (E8, frame-pair audit), Self-Audit Resistance Monitor (E9, Section 6 read).
**Purpose:** The single canonical binding from Evaluator-loaded frame to per-axis formula. E4 reads this catalog at Phase B (Loaded-Frame Formula Instantiation). E2 cites formula IDs in audit findings. E5 links blind-spot probes to axis formulas. E9 reads Section 6 of the corresponding frame-pack for taxonomy completeness checks.
**Source-of-truth:** `_public/frame-packs/<frame>.md` Section 6 ("Scoring Hook"). This catalog is a binding layer, not a replacement; the frame-pack is the methodology authority.

---

## 0. Schema and Naming

### 0.1 Three Evaluator axes (load-bearing, non-collapse)

| E4 axis label (used in disagreement blocks) | Frame-pack vocabulary | Audit question |
|---|---|---|
| **Evidence-Independent** | `axis_warrant` | Is the frame-internal evidence-licensing condition satisfied? |
| **Transportability-Independent** | `axis_fit` | Does the claim hold across the frame's relevant context-variation surface? |
| **Decision-Independent** | `axis_robustness` | Does the claim survive the frame's continued-inquiry / out-of-sample / variability test? |

Hard rule (E4 SKILL.md Hard Rule 1, NON-COLLAPSE): the three axes are separately reasoned AND separately displayed. No composite, overall, integrated, weighted, summary, or holistic score. `aggregation_rule: non_collapse` is an architectural lock encoded in every frame-pack Section 6 and re-asserted here as the catalog's load-bearing invariant.

### 0.2 Formula-ID schema

```
<FRAME-PREFIX>-<axis-shortname>-<version>
```

Frame prefixes (exhaustive; any other prefix is an automatic E-MIRROR fail):
- `PRAG` -- Pragmatist
- `PHEN` -- Phenomenological
- `CONSTR` -- Constructivist
- `REAL-AC` -- Realist-CMO **as audit criterion** (NEVER `REAL-TS` or any transportability-signal form -- see Section 6 below)
- `HIST` -- Historiographic
- `DISC` -- Discourse-Analytic
- `CHILISA` -- Chilisa Indigenous (with overlay-mode caveats; see Section 7)

Axis shortnames: `EVIDENCE`, `TRANSPORTABILITY`, `DECISION`. Version suffix is integer-major + dot-minor (e.g., `v1.0`).

A formula ID `RAM-S02-*`, `RAM-S03-*`, or `RAM-S08-*` appearing anywhere in an Evaluator emission, ledger entry, or scored artifact is **fatal** (E-MIRROR) -- those identifiers belong to RAM's S2 / S3 / S8 internal formulas and corrupting the silo boundary. Repair: re-instantiate from this catalog.

### 0.3 Per-frame entry shape (load schema)

Each frame's catalog entry contains:
- Three axis records (Evidence-Independent / Transportability-Independent / Decision-Independent) with:
  - `formula_id`
  - `frame_pack_section_ref` (anchor into `_public/frame-packs/<frame>.md`)
  - `inputs` -- what the formula reads (Blind-Spot findings, Audit Method artifact, ledger-entry kinds, frame-pack retrieval-hook outputs)
  - `procedure` -- 2-5-step computation in frame vocabulary
  - `output_scale` -- the per-frame value space the formula returns
  - `frame_internal_rationale_seed` -- 2-4 sentences for E4 to expand into the per-axis rationale block
  - `non_assertibility_conditions` -- when the axis must be stamped Non-Assertible rather than computed
- `role_divider_state` requirements (REAL-AC only)
- `overlay_predicate` requirements (CHILISA only)

---

## 1. Pragmatist (`PRAG`)

**Frame pack:** `_public/frame-packs/pragmatist.md`. Methodology: Dewey 1938 + Peirce fallibilism. Audit asks: was the inquiry chain reconstructible, did consequences hold for the actors, did the proposition survive continued inquiry?

### 1.1 PRAG-EVIDENCE-v1.0 (Evidence-Independent)

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_warrant`.
- **Inputs:** RAM's claim + RAM's stated inquiry chain (problem-formulation, hypothesis-as-tool, operation, judgment); E2 audit artifact's reconstruction of the inquiry chain; E5 findings on chain-step gaps; ledger `audit-finding` entries citing each chain transition.
- **Procedure:**
  1. Identify the four chain stages in the audit artifact.
  2. Score traceability of each stage (present + cite-able / partially-traceable / absent).
  3. Score the three transitions (problem->hypothesis, hypothesis->operation, operation->judgment) for defensibility.
  4. Aggregate to a single warrant score on the frame's scale.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {full / partial / weak / non-assertible}. Each tier requires the corresponding evidence pattern in the audit artifact.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Pragmatist evidence-warrant rests on inquiry-chain reconstructibility (Dewey 1938). The chain must traverse problem-formulation -> hypothesis-as-tool -> operation -> judgment with defensible transitions. Gaps at any stage demote the warrant tier. Pure correspondence-evidence is not sufficient; the inquiry's situated chain is what licenses assertibility."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** RAM did not state an inquiry chain (no chain to audit); audit artifact lacks at least three of the four chain stages.

### 1.2 PRAG-TRANSPORTABILITY-v1.0 (Transportability-Independent)

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_fit`.
- **Inputs:** Evidence of the proposition's adoption-survival across actors / situations beyond the originating inquiry community; cross-context follow-up data in audit artifact; ledger `audit-finding` entries on transfer attempts.
- **Procedure:** Score whether the proposition still functions as a working tool for actors in situations distinct from the originating inquiry community; if no transfer evidence, mark Non-Assertible (do not infer transfer from in-community success).
- **Output scale:** ordinal {sustained-across-actors / partial-transfer / community-bound / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Pragmatist fit is consequence-stability for the actors the claim addresses (Section 6). Transfer evidence is not assumed from publication; it is observed in re-application. Anti-foundationalism makes cross-community transfer harder, not easier."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** zero transfer attempts documented; only originating-community evidence available.

### 1.3 PRAG-DECISION-v1.0 (Decision-Independent)

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_robustness`.
- **Inputs:** Evidence of continued inquiry past the original judgment; cases where re-application produced incremental vs. category-changing revision.
- **Procedure:** Score whether the proposition holds when re-applied in novel but situation-relevant conditions, or requires re-formulation; explicit category-changing revision = Non-Assertible.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {survives-continued-inquiry / requires-incremental-revision / requires-category-change / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Survival under continued inquiry is the pragmatist test of robustness. Incremental revision is normal pragmatist progress; category-changing revision means the proposition has been replaced, not robust."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** no continued-inquiry data; only single-shot evaluation.

---

## 2. Phenomenological (`PHEN`)

**Frame pack:** `_public/frame-packs/phenomenological.md`. Methodology: Husserlian reduction + lifeworld fidelity. Audit asks: is the claim anchored to the lived phenomenon, or has natural-attitude presupposition leaked in?

### 2.1 PHEN-EVIDENCE-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_warrant`.
- **Inputs:** RAM's claim language; first-person description corpus from audit artifact; E5 findings on operationalization shortcuts (severance into proxy).
- **Procedure:** Score whether the claim remains anchored to the lived phenomenon without severance into operationalized proxy. Each operationalization step = a reduction in lifeworld fidelity until the proxy can no longer be traced back.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {fully-anchored / lightly-proxied / heavily-proxied / proxy-only}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Phenomenological warrant is lifeworld fidelity. Operationalization is not free -- each proxy step risks severance from the phenomenon the claim purports to describe. The audit traces the proxy chain backward; weak chains demote warrant."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** RAM offered no first-person description; only operationalized variables present.

### 2.2 PHEN-TRANSPORTABILITY-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_fit`.
- **Inputs:** Evidence of phenomenological-reduction completeness; bracketing artifacts; natural-attitude presuppositions surfaced or unmarked in claim language.
- **Procedure:** Score whether the natural attitude has been bracketed, or has leaked into the claim as unmarked presupposition. Unmarked presupposition is the dominant failure mode here.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {bracketed / partially-bracketed / unbracketed / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Phenomenological fit is reduction-completeness. The natural attitude must be bracketed; when it leaks unmarked into claim language, the claim is no longer phenomenological."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** no bracketing artifact; reduction step absent from method description.

### 2.3 PHEN-DECISION-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_robustness`.
- **Inputs:** Multiple varied first-person descriptions of the phenomenon; invariant-structure analysis output.
- **Procedure:** Score whether essential features hold across varied descriptions of the phenomenon. Variations that collapse the structure = Non-Assertible robustness.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {invariant-across-variations / mostly-invariant / structure-collapses / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Robustness in phenomenological audit is invariant-structure persistence under imaginative variation. Structural collapse under varied description means the original claim was a particular description, not an essential structure."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** only one description available; no variation surface.

---

## 3. Constructivist (`CONSTR`)

**Frame pack:** `_public/frame-packs/constructivist.md`. Methodology: Lincoln-Guba trustworthiness + hermeneutic-dialectic rounds. Audit asks: is the audit trail reconstructible, are stakeholder claims surfaced fairly, do typifications survive their own contradictions?

### 3.1 CONSTR-EVIDENCE-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_warrant`.
- **Inputs:** Credibility / transferability / dependability / confirmability evidence per audit artifact; E5 findings on each criterion; ledger entries citing prolonged-engagement, peer-debriefing, member-checking, audit-trail evidence.
- **Procedure:** Score each of the four criteria against its standard evidentiary procedures. The four scores are NON-COLLAPSED inside this axis -- the audit reports each separately, and the warrant score is the weakest of the four (not a mean).
- **Output scale:** four-tuple {credibility / transferability / dependability / confirmability} on ordinal {strong / present / weak / absent} each.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Constructivist warrant is trustworthiness across four criteria (Lincoln-Guba). Each criterion has its own evidentiary procedure; weakness in any one drags the warrant. Aggregating to a single number masks where the audit found weakness."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** any criterion has zero evidence (not all four required to be strong; at least one must be present per criterion).

### 3.2 CONSTR-TRANSPORTABILITY-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_fit`.
- **Inputs:** Stakeholder-claim coverage analysis; coalition-membership map; surfaced vs. suppressed claims log.
- **Procedure:** Score whether the audit surfaces relevant claims, concerns, and issues across the stakeholder coalition, or privileges one subset.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {full-coverage / partial-coverage / privileged-subset / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Constructivist fit is stakeholder-coalition coverage. Privileging one subset of the coalition's claims is the dominant failure mode -- the audit must surface claims, concerns, and issues across the coalition or it is not constructivist."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** coalition not enumerated; only one stakeholder voice in evidence.

### 3.3 CONSTR-DECISION-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_robustness`.
- **Inputs:** Hermeneutic-dialectic round records; audit-trail completeness; reified-typification check.
- **Procedure:** Score whether the hermeneutic-dialectic rounds can be reconstructed from the preserved record. Reified typifications (frozen categories that no longer respond to feedback) demote robustness.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {reconstructible / partially-reconstructible / opaque / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Constructivist robustness is audit-trail completeness through the hermeneutic-dialectic rounds. If the rounds cannot be reconstructed, the decision rests on un-auditable foundation."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** no audit trail; rounds collapsed into a single statement.

---

## 4. Realist-CMO -- Audit-Criterion ONLY (`REAL-AC`)

**Frame pack:** `_public/frame-packs/realist-cmo.md`. Methodology: Pawson-Tilley CMO + middle-range theory. Audit asks: is the mechanism specified, are enabling contexts articulated, are differential outcomes predicted across context variations?

**ROLE-DIVIDER (LOAD-BEARING):** This frame is licensed in the Evaluator silo **only as audit criterion**. Any application reducing to transportability signal corrupts the silo boundary -- RAM's S03 transportability signal uses the same Pawson-Tilley lineage, so role-divider enforcement is **mandatory**. See `evaluator/_public/frame-packs/role-divider-protocol.md`. The catalog entry below carries `role_divider_state: audit-criterion` as a load-bearing field; emission with `role_divider_state: transportability-signal` is fatal (E-FRAME-IMPLICIT + role-divider violation).

### 4.1 REAL-AC-EVIDENCE-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_warrant`.
- **Inputs:** RAM's claim + RAM's mechanism specification (or its absence); E2 audit's reconstruction of the asserted mechanism; E5 findings on mechanism articulation gaps.
- **Procedure:**
  1. Identify the asserted generative mechanism in RAM's claim.
  2. Score whether it is articulated at a level instantiable in a different context, or only named.
  3. A mechanism named without internal structure scores zero on this axis (not low -- zero) and the axis is Non-Assertible if no mechanism at all is named.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {fully-instantiable / partially-articulated / named-only / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Realist-CMO evidence-warrant is mechanism specification quality. A named mechanism without internal structure is not a mechanism for audit purposes; correlation dressed as mechanism is the dominant failure mode."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** RAM did not assert a mechanism; only correlations or outcomes asserted.
- **Role divider:** REQUIRED `role_divider_state: audit-criterion`. Missing or set to `transportability-signal` = fatal.

### 4.2 REAL-AC-TRANSPORTABILITY-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_fit`.
- **Inputs:** Enabling-context conditions specified in claim; non-enabling conditions distinguished; E5 findings on context-articulation gaps.
- **Procedure:** Score whether the contextual conditions enabling the mechanism's firing are specified, AND whether non-enabling conditions are distinguished. Both halves required; one without the other = partial.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {fully-articulated / enabling-only / non-enabling-only / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Realist-CMO fit is enabling-context articulation. Both enabling and non-enabling conditions must be distinguished; otherwise the mechanism is asserted as context-free, which contradicts the realist ontology."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** no contextual conditions specified; mechanism asserted as universal.
- **Role divider:** REQUIRED `role_divider_state: audit-criterion`.
- **CRITICAL ANTI-PATTERN:** if the Evaluator's transportability score on this axis numerically tracks RAM's S03 transportability signal, the role-divider has been violated. The audit-criterion application asks "is the enabling context articulated as a criterion?" -- NOT "does the mechanism transport?" The latter is RAM's question.

### 4.3 REAL-AC-DECISION-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_robustness`.
- **Inputs:** Differential-outcome-pattern predictions; out-of-sample case data; context-variation surface.
- **Procedure:** Score whether the claim predicts distinct outcomes across context variations, AND whether predictions survive out-of-sample cases. Differential prediction without out-of-sample test = partial; matching predictions across context variations (suggesting the mechanism is context-free) = failed differential prediction.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {survives-out-of-sample / differential-only-in-sample / no-differential / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Realist-CMO robustness is differential-outcome-pattern prediction across context variations. A mechanism that produces the same outcome regardless of context variation is either context-free (rare) or under-specified (common)."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** no out-of-sample data; only retrospective fit.
- **Role divider:** REQUIRED `role_divider_state: audit-criterion`.

---

## 5. Historiographic (`HIST`)

**Frame pack:** `_public/frame-packs/historiographic.md`. Methodology: trace-fidelity + emplotment self-disclosure + lacunae declared. Audit asks: are anomalous traces handled on their own terms, do reconstructions declare their tropological choices, are silences surfaced?

### 5.1 HIST-EVIDENCE-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_warrant`.
- **Inputs:** Trace chain from evidence to reconstruction; anomalous traces handled or smoothed; E5 findings on smoothing patterns.
- **Procedure:** Score whether anomalous traces are handled on their own terms rather than smoothed into the emplotment, AND whether the trace chain from evidence to reconstruction survives inspection.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {trace-fidelity-strong / partial-fidelity / smoothed / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Historiographic evidence-warrant is trace-fidelity. Smoothing anomalous traces into the emplotment is the dominant failure mode -- it produces a coherent narrative at the cost of the historical record."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** sources cited without traceable chain; reconstruction asserts events without trace evidence.

### 5.2 HIST-TRANSPORTABILITY-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_fit`.
- **Inputs:** Tropological and emplotment choices declared (or not) in the claim; E5 findings on un-declared tropological framings.
- **Procedure:** Score whether the claim declares its tropological and emplotment choices, or presents the reconstruction as if inevitable.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {choices-declared / partially-declared / presented-as-inevitable / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Historiographic fit is emplotment self-disclosure. Presenting a reconstruction as if inevitable hides the tropological choice and falsely universalizes a particular framing."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** no engagement with emplotment; narrative form taken as transparent.

### 5.3 HIST-DECISION-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_robustness`.
- **Inputs:** Trace-chain silences; lacunae acknowledgements; trace-gap repairs (if any).
- **Procedure:** Score whether silences in the trace chain are surfaced rather than papered over.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {lacunae-declared / partially-declared / papered-over / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Historiographic robustness is lacunae self-disclosure. A reconstruction whose silent gaps are papered over is robust only against readers who do not look; under continued inquiry it fractures."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** trace chain is monolithic with no acknowledged gaps.

---

## 6. Discourse-Analytic (`DISC`)

**Frame pack:** `_public/frame-packs/discourse-analytic.md`. Methodology: Foucauldian discursive-formation + subject-position mapping + variability analysis. Audit asks: is the formation that authorizes the claim made explicit, are subject positions and exclusions surfaced, does the claim hold across talk/text variation?

### 6.1 DISC-EVIDENCE-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_warrant`.
- **Inputs:** Discursive formation specification (rules of rarity, authority, institutional conditions); E5 findings on formation gaps.
- **Procedure:** Score whether the formation that authorizes the claim has been made explicit -- rules of rarity, authority, institutional conditions all enumerated.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {formation-explicit / partially-explicit / formation-implicit / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Discourse-analytic warrant is discursive-formation specification. Claims emerge from formations; the audit asks which formation, with which rules of rarity, under what institutional conditions."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** no formation specified; claim presented as decontextualized statement.

### 6.2 DISC-TRANSPORTABILITY-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_fit`.
- **Inputs:** Subject-position constitution map; excluded-statement enumeration; E5 findings on missing-position checks.
- **Procedure:** Score whether the positions the claim constitutes are identified, AND whether statements the formation excludes are surfaced.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {positions-and-exclusions-mapped / positions-only / exclusions-only / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Discourse-analytic fit is subject-position and exclusion mapping. A claim that surfaces positions without exclusions, or exclusions without positions, is half-mapped."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** no analysis of who/what the claim constitutes or excludes.

### 6.3 DISC-DECISION-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_robustness`.
- **Inputs:** Multiple talk/text occurrences; variability across occurrences; repertoire-relativity check.
- **Procedure:** Score whether the claim holds across multiple talk/text occurrences, or variability fractures it into repertoire-relative fragments. High variability = non-robust at the claim level (legitimate at the repertoire level, but the original claim does not survive).
- **Output scale:** ordinal {claim-holds-across-corpus / repertoire-fragments / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "Discourse-analytic robustness is variability analysis. A claim that fractures into repertoire-relative fragments under variability is no longer the original claim; it has been re-located to one repertoire."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** only one occurrence in evidence; no variability surface.

---

## 7. Chilisa Indigenous (`CHILISA`)

**Frame pack:** `_public/frame-packs/chilisa-indigenous.md`. Methodology: Four-Rs (Respect / Relevance / Reciprocity / Responsibility) + relational accountability + community knowledge-system grounding. Audit asks: is the inquiry relationship accountable, do findings address community priorities, are methods culturally grounded and verified?

**OVERLAY PREDICATE (LOAD-BEARING):** When CHILISA is loaded as an overlay on top of another frame, the Four-Rs predicate gates scoring -- all four Rs must be attested or the axis emits `NO_SCORE_FOUR_RS_UNMET`. The overlay attaches to the host frame's axes; it does NOT replace them. See `evaluator/_public/frame-packs/chilisa-overlay-trigger.md` for activation rules. **Architectural-limit disclosure:** primary-source corpus access for many Indigenous knowledge traditions remains insufficient (Phase 6 R9.4 known-gap flag); honest disclosure is required when the overlay activates without sufficient corpus.

### 7.1 CHILISA-EVIDENCE-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_warrant`.
- **Inputs:** Research relationship documentation; accountability artifacts across the inquiry lifecycle; E5 findings on relationship gaps; community-validation records.
- **Procedure:** Score whether the research relationship is accountable, respectful, reciprocal, and rights-honoring throughout the lifecycle. All four Rs are required (architectural lock); a relationship strong on three of four Rs but weak on the fourth fails.
- **Output scale:** four-tuple {Respect / Relevance / Reciprocity / Responsibility} on ordinal {attested / partial / absent}; axis score = weakest of the four (not a mean).
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "CHILISA evidence-warrant is relational quality of inquiry. The Four-Rs predicate is architectural -- a research relationship that fails any one R is not an Indigenous-honoring relationship, regardless of the strength of the other three."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** any one R has zero evidence; or no community participation in lifecycle documentation.
- **Overlay handling:** if loaded as overlay, this axis MUST emit a score AND an overlay-mode flag. If host-frame's evidence axis differs in conclusion, Frame Divergence Gate is alerted.

### 7.2 CHILISA-TRANSPORTABILITY-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_fit`.
- **Inputs:** Community-prioritization records; coverage of priorities-vs-academy-priorities; missed-priority log.
- **Procedure:** Score whether findings address what the community identified as priorities, or what the academy identified as publishable.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {community-prioritized / mixed / academy-prioritized / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "CHILISA fit is community-prioritized finding coverage. Academy priorities are not Indigenous priorities; the audit asks who set the agenda."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** no community-priority documentation; agenda-setting unaccounted.
- **Overlay handling:** if loaded as overlay, this axis evaluates the host-frame's findings against community priorities, not its own.

### 7.3 CHILISA-DECISION-v1.0

- **Frame-pack ref:** Section 6 `axis_robustness`.
- **Inputs:** Method declarations; community knowledge-system grounding documentation; community verification records.
- **Procedure:** Score whether methods are grounded in the community's knowledge system AND that grounding is documented and verified with the community.
- **Output scale:** ordinal {grounded-and-verified / grounded-unverified / academic-only / non-assertible}.
- **Frame-internal rationale seed:** "CHILISA robustness is culturally appropriate method declaration. Methods grounded only in academic knowledge systems do not survive Indigenous-research audit even if the inquiry topic is Indigenous-relevant."
- **Non-assertibility conditions:** no community verification of method grounding.
- **Overlay handling:** if loaded as overlay, this axis triggers `NO_SCORE_FOUR_RS_UNMET` if Four-Rs (axis 7.1 input check) are not all attested -- the host-frame's robustness conclusion does not propagate.

---

## 8. Cross-frame consistency invariants

The catalog enforces these invariants across all 7 frames, verifiable by E4 schema check and E9 taxonomy completeness check:

1. Each frame has exactly 3 axis entries (Evidence-Independent / Transportability-Independent / Decision-Independent). Absence of any one = catalog defect.
2. Each axis entry has exactly the 7 fields enumerated in Section 0.3. Missing field = catalog defect.
3. Every formula ID matches `<FRAME-PREFIX>-<AXIS-NAME>-v<MAJOR>.<MINOR>` with frame prefix in the closed set {PRAG, PHEN, CONSTR, REAL-AC, HIST, DISC, CHILISA}. Any other prefix = E-MIRROR fail at E4 emission.
4. `aggregation_rule: non_collapse` applies to every axis on every frame (architectural lock). Any axis carrying a `composite` / `overall` / `aggregate` / `weighted` field = E-COLLAPSE fail.
5. REAL-AC entries carry `role_divider_state: audit-criterion` (mandatory; never `transportability-signal`).
6. CHILISA entries carry overlay handling notes per axis (mandatory when overlay-mode is active).
7. No frame's formula ID anywhere matches a RAM-prefix pattern (`RAM-S02-*`, `RAM-S03-*`, `RAM-S08-*`).

---

## 9. Catalog versioning

**Version:** v1.0 (2026-04-26 -- Phase 9 prep, repair of Phase 8 W1 source gap).
**Authoring source:** Phase 6 source-engineering of frame-pack Section 6 binding to E4 axis labels per E4 SKILL.md Phase B (lines 80-86 summary binding) and Phase 5 LIBRARY_ARCHITECTURE Public-Evaluator catalog entry.

**Versioning rules:**
- MAJOR bump: change to axis-naming, schema, or invariant set (Section 8 cross-frame invariants). Requires Charter amendment.
- MINOR bump: extension to a per-frame axis entry (e.g., new input source, refined procedure step) without schema change. Requires Phase 4 instruction-engineering review.
- Patch (no bump): typo / clarification edits.

**Pilot calibration:** Section 6 procedure steps and output-scale ordinals are seeded from frame-pack Section 6 Scoring Hooks. Phase 9 telemetry will calibrate ordinal-tier thresholds (full / partial / weak / absent boundaries) per axis per frame from observed inter-rater agreement. Threshold updates flow through MINOR-bump amendments, never runtime self-tune (per E4 Hard Rule 5 anti-sycophancy + E7 EC-RUNTIME-SELF-CALIBRATION trap).

---

End of AXIS_FORMULA_CATALOG_BY_FRAME.md.
