Semantic Change Assurance · Prototype
Know what a controlled change actually changes
EvidView helps quality teams move from a changed source to inspectable semantic change records, bounded downstream findings, and accountable human review.
Inspectable claims. Declared scope. Human accountability.
One change, followed to a bounded conclusion
Stable final state
Declared boundary: A result applies only to this declared synthetic portfolio, frozen graph, applicability policy, and evaluation budget.
Show as an ordered list
- Source versions: compare QMS-SOP-014 v4.1 with v4.2.
- Changed evidence: “may” becomes “must”; “30 calendar days” becomes “15 calendar days”.
- Semantic Delta: SD-SYN-001 records a mandatory obligation and shorter deadline, bound to exact excerpts.
- Dependency propagation: evaluate five registered objects inside the declared frozen graph and budget.
- Bounded findings: WI-08 and CL-04 are potentially affected; TR-22 requires review; FRM-11 has no relevant impact found within evaluated scope; SOP-21 is not evaluated.
- Human decision: a Quality Systems Reviewer confirms the TR-22 relationship and retains review-required impact.
- Research boundary: action assignment, evidence collection, and complete closure remain research direction; M6–M8 are incomplete.
- Intended actions and evidence: revise WI-08, update CL-04, and review TR-22, with exact completion evidence attached to each action.
- Stable final state: the synthetic narrative reaches Closed only after all five declared closure gates pass.
The causal sequence
A change is not closed when analysis ends
Scroll normally through seven distinct stages. The emphasis follows the reading order; no content is pinned, replaced, or hidden.
Change
A controlled source changes
An approved version pair and declared portfolio establish what may be evaluated.
QMS-SOP-014 · v4.1 → v4.2Propagate
Meaning is separated from text
Exact changed evidence is normalized into a reviewable Semantic Delta.
OPTIONAL → MANDATORY · 30 → 15 daysInspect
Dependencies are evaluated
Candidate paths retain relationship, origin, method, evidence, version, and state.
Confirmed · inferred · blockedDecide
Uncertainty reaches a person
An accountable reviewer confirms, corrects, rejects, or leaves a finding unresolved.
TR-22 · human decision retained- Research direction
Act
Accepted findings become owned work
The intended workflow connects accepted findings to bounded actions and accountable owners.
M6 incomplete · not current capability - Research direction
Prove
Evidence is attached to exact actions
The intended record binds completion evidence, versions, decisions, and limitations.
M7 incomplete · not current capability - Research direction
Close
Closure follows declared gates
Only resolved decisions, completed or accepted actions, evidence, exceptions, and approvals can support closure.
M8 incomplete · synthetic target workflow
Synthetic case The sequence explains intended causality. It is not live analysis, and Act, Prove, and Close are not current M0–M4 product capabilities.
A new version is only the beginning
Version history tells you that a file changed. Text diff shows which characters changed. Neither establishes what changed in meaning, what depends on it, or what evidence is required before the change may be treated as closed.
EvidView separates those questions so a team can inspect the basis of each material conclusion instead of accepting a fluent summary as authority.
- File changed ≠ meaning understood
- Meaning changed ≠ downstream effect confirmed
- Finding produced ≠ human decision recorded
- Analysis complete ≠ change closed
- 01 File changed
- 02 Meaning understood
- 03 Impact known
- 04 Closure evidenced
One change, traced through its consequences
Compare an approved source-version pair. Bind material old and new meaning to exact excerpts. Evaluate dependency candidates inside a declared portfolio. Put uncertainty and policy-sensitive findings in front of an accountable reviewer.
The intended end-to-end workflow then connects accepted findings to actions, implementation evidence, approvals, and closure. Action assignment and complete closure packaging remain research direction rather than current prototype capability.
- Controlled source → Semantic Delta
- Semantic Delta → dependency paths
- Paths → bounded impact findings
- Findings → human judgment
- Research direction: judgment → action → evidence → closure
- 01Change
- 02Propagate
- 03Inspect
- 04Decide
- 05ActResearch direction
- 06ProveResearch direction
- 07CloseResearch direction
Five artifacts keep different questions separate
The target product surface uses distinct artifacts so evidence, inference, review, scope, and closure are not collapsed into one status.
- Semantic Delta — the material claim-level change and its exact before-and-after evidence. It does not prove downstream impact.
- Impact Register — affected, potentially affected, and review-required objects with paths and reasons. An inferred path remains an inference until reviewed.
- Conflict and Ambiguity Queue — evidence or meaning that cannot safely be resolved without more information or judgment.
- Unaffected Scope — successfully processed objects for which no relevant path was found inside the declared evaluation boundary. It is not a universal no-impact claim.
- Change Evidence Package — the intended record of decisions, actions, evidence, limitations, and closure state. The complete package and closure workflow are not current M0–M4 capabilities.
- Semantic Delta
- Meaning change with exact old/new evidence.
- Impact Register
- Objects, paths, risks, owners, and review states.
- Ambiguity Queue
- Competing evidence and unresolved meaning.
- Unaffected Scope
- Bounded negatives inside the declared evaluation.
- Evidence Package
- Research direction Decisions, action evidence, approvals, and closure.
Inspect the path, not just the answer
The prototype can retain exact old and new evidence for semantic change records, evidence and lifecycle state for dependency candidates, and reconstructable paths for positive bounded impact findings.
Known ambiguity, stale inputs, unsupported evidence, and exhausted budgets remain visible instead of silently becoming accepted or unaffected conclusions.
Inspect the path, not just the outcome
Select a target to inspect its node, relationship basis, evidence, lifecycle state, version, and bounded impact reason.
Choose a target
Target node · WI-08
Investigation Work Instruction
- Source evidenceQMS-SOP-014 v4.2
- Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
- Relationshipreferences and restates
- TargetWI-08
- Object
- WI-08 · Investigation Work Instruction
- Type
- Controlled work instruction
- State
- confirmed
- Reason
- The work instruction repeats both changed fields.
- Source
- QMS-SOP-014, Section 6.2, paragraph 2
- Evidence
- Section 2 cites QMS-SOP-014; section 4.1 repeats the 30-day initiation window.
- Relationship
- references and restates
- Origin
- exact reference plus structural match
- Method
- deterministic reference rule v1
- Lifecycle state
- confirmed
- Graph version
- GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01
- Comparison
- CMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01
Target node · CL-04
Investigation Intake Checklist
- Source evidenceQMS-SOP-014 v4.2
- Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
- Relationshipimplements
- TargetCL-04
- Object
- CL-04 · Investigation Intake Checklist
- Type
- Controlled checklist
- State
- confirmed
- Reason
- The acceptance criterion contains the previous deadline.
- Source
- QMS-SOP-014, Section 6.2, paragraph 2
- Evidence
- Checklist item 7 asks whether initiation occurred within 30 calendar days.
- Relationship
- implements
- Origin
- field-to-claim match
- Method
- policy rule v3
- Lifecycle state
- confirmed
- Graph version
- GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01
- Comparison
- CMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01
Target node · TR-22
Investigator Refresher Training
- Source evidenceQMS-SOP-014 v4.2
- Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
- Relationshiptrains
- TargetTR-22
- Object
- TR-22 · Investigator Refresher Training
- Type
- Training module
- State
- inferred — review required
- Reason
- The content is semantically related, but the relationship is not yet confirmed.
- Source
- QMS-SOP-014, Section 6.2, paragraph 2
- Evidence
- Module 3 teaches investigation initiation timing but does not cite the SOP identifier.
- Relationship
- trains
- Origin
- semantic candidate
- Method
- bounded candidate classifier v2
- Lifecycle state
- inferred — review required
- Graph version
- GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01
- Comparison
- CMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01
Declared boundary: A result applies only to this declared synthetic portfolio, frozen graph, applicability policy, and evaluation budget.
Every material conclusion keeps an inspectable basis
Follow one bounded impact finding back through its relationship, semantic record, exact excerpts, source locator, and frozen evaluation basis.
Inspect the basis for WI-08
- Impact findingWI-08 · potentially affected
The work instruction repeats both changed fields.
- Dependency edgereferences and restates
exact reference plus structural match · deterministic reference rule v1 · confirmed
- Semantic DeltaSD-SYN-001
OPTIONAL → MANDATORY; WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS → WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS
- Exact version evidencev4.1 → v4.2
The Quality Investigator may initiate the investigation within 30 calendar days of intake.
The Quality Investigator must initiate the investigation within 15 calendar days of intake.
- Source identityQMS-SOP-014 · Nonconformance Investigation
Section 6.2, paragraph 2
- Frozen evaluation basisCMP-SYN-2026-09-15-01
GRAPH-SYN-2026-09-15-01 · maximum depth 3; maximum 25 retained paths
Built for accountable judgment
Machine inference proposes and organizes. Deterministic rules check only what their declared scope supports. Named people confirm, correct, reject, or leave records unresolved.
EvidView is designed to reduce unnecessary review without removing the people accountable for policy, context, and approval.
Current status, without ambiguity
Implementation: M0–M4 source, semantic-change, dependency, impact, and review surfaces exist in the repository.
Verification: the recorded baseline is locally qualified with synthetic fixtures and named checks.
Availability: Prototype. No public self-service or production availability is claimed.
Evidence: thesis, synthetic cases, and one published one-path internal development benchmark. No customer, pilot, generalizable performance, or commercial-outcome claim is made.
Bring a change worth understanding
Start with a historical controlled-document revision and the downstream material your team had to assess. The first conversation needs no confidential source document.
- Bring a Change
- Become a Design Partner
Next step