\section{Bounded Evidence from Current KFD Cases}
\label{sec:evidence}

\subsection{Immutable evidence cut}

This paper freezes KFD repository commit
\texttt{ada402f671a878ff21e2f0d1c1b21c0458bac7a5}, dated July 21, 2026
\cite{kfdCut2026}. Later changes cannot be projected backward into the paper's
claim. At this cut, KFD-4 and KFD-5 are active; KFD-6 is draft. The live-case
registry contains three active cases and six candidate tracks
\cite{kfdCases2026}.

\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\small
\begin{tabular}{p{0.265\linewidth}p{0.195\linewidth}p{0.145\linewidth}p{0.275\linewidth}}
\toprule
Live case & Track & Status & Claim boundary \\
\midrule
Proof-Carrying Work Object & Pursuit & Provisional & Durable intended-change
identity; no universal work ontology or accepted Primitive claim. \\
 & Warrant & Provisional & Purpose-bound authorization; no replacement for
enforcement or accepted Primitive claim. \\
\addlinespace
Software-Work Perspective Settlement & Initiative & Accepted & Accepted only
as a software-development Domain Profile Primitive. \\
 & Assignment & Accepted & Accepted only as bounded software-work
responsibility in the current profile. \\
 & Project Cut & Accepted & Accepted only as a software-project settlement
Primitive; not a fourth fact engine or universal object. \\
\addlinespace
Decision-Admission Settlement & Consequential Settlement & Provisional & Draft
KFD-11 procedure; no activation, universal minimality, or independent
cross-domain adoption. \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{KFD live-case evidence at commit \texttt{ada402f}. ``Accepted'' is
scope-bounded and does not mean universal or historically novel.}
\label{tab:cases}
\end{table}

The table establishes public case coordinates and outcome boundaries. It does
not establish that an Episode corpus caused every candidate, that one method
was necessary or sufficient, or that acceptance predicts transfer.

\subsection{Two perspective transformations}

The software-work case records two transformations over retained development
history. Moving from Primitive developer to real human user exposed
\emph{Initiative} and \emph{Assignment}: lower action coordinates did not by
themselves state which work belonged together or whether a participant
accepted responsibility. Moving from coordinator to successor acting agent
exposed \emph{Project Cut}: available source, Episode, Atlas, policy, omission,
and risk records did not by themselves identify the one combination officially
settled for continuation.

Each accepted track includes a deletion witness. If Initiative grouping is
erased, equal lower objects can still require different coordination. If
Assignment acceptance is erased, equal objective and authority can still
require different accountability. If Project Cut selection is erased, equal
components can still distinguish a verified settlement from a candidate
combination. The qualifications remain limited to their software profiles.

\subsection{Natural pre-enactment of part of KFD-6}

The Consequential Settlement case is the strongest evidence for this paper's
specific thesis \cite{kfdConsequential2026}. During real development, agents
generated Claim, purpose-bound Assessment, and Decision before the maintainer
became aware of those named objects. Later agents replayed retained development
lineage, connected the intermediate ontology to Fact Admission, and compressed
it into a provisional procedure. Maintainer authorization, repository review,
and merge admission remained separate from generation.

This supports a bounded statement: an agent-generated ontology change can
emerge under real work pressure, remain recoverable in retained history, and
later receive separate KFD-5 qualification with less direct human translation
than the founding pattern assumed.

It is not a conforming KFD-6 experiment. The experience cut was reconstructed
after action. Methods and budgets were not preregistered. There was no plural
method comparison against fixed-ontology and no-new-Primitive baselines. The
evaluation was not held out from discovery, systematic false-candidate
rejection was absent, and no autonomous trigger began ontology review. The
case is a retrospective fixture for designing an experiment, not activation
evidence.

\subsection{Evidence grades}

We use four grades to prevent rhetorical promotion:

\begin{description}[leftmargin=2.0em,style=nextline]
  \item[E0 -- repository fact.] Exact commit, schema, case, cut digest, status,
        test, review, or release coordinate.
  \item[E1 -- implementation-backed case inference.] A bounded interpretation
        supported by retained public history and explicit falsifiers.
  \item[E2 -- prospective hypothesis.] A mechanism or metric requiring a new
        controlled or shadow evaluation.
  \item[E3 -- non-claim.] Universal validity, historical novelty, general
        autonomous discovery, or quantified social value not supported here.
\end{description}

Table~\ref{tab:cases} is E0. The natural pre-enactment interpretation is E1.
The discovery option model and prospective evaluation are E2. A statement that
KFD-6 is operationally proven would be E3 and is rejected.
