Preserve native authoring evidence and compared semantic contracts

harness/DECISIONS.md

@@ -278,3 +278,44 @@ This is a selected design under implementation, not a native acceptance claim.
 Native reverse scenario Apply selected a dependency and inserted five overlapping behavior placements into an unrelated architecture view. Core transition correctness did not make that presentation useful. Select the counterpart of the explicit request root and resolve its nearest scenario/process/chain/state owner. Without an explicit destination diagram, keep the exact core candidate and open Behavior; preserve unrelated architecture views. Retain ordinary architecture transition placement and honor explicit diagram choices.
 
 Automatically creating another architecture view would retain the wrong editing workspace and introduce unrequested model state. Merely navigating to Behavior after adding placements would conceal the presentation damage. Both alternatives are rejected. The selected correction retains one source transaction and Undo operation and guards stale canvas events. Revisit if mixed-root requests or realistic explicit destination workflows require a separate user choice; do not infer such a choice from dependency ordering. Test/build/native acceptance is recorded separately in release-behavior-transition-context-20260906.md.
+
+## Property baselines and explicit alternative cases — 2026-09-11
+
+Problem: complete independent bindings repeat shared engineering assumptions in
+every ordinary study case. The user requires practical text-only development and
+reduced cognitive load for small and large models. Evaluator implementation
+simplicity alone cannot justify that authoring cost.
+
+Select property-owned base values/formulas and one-level case overrides as the next
+active-study contract to formalize. Every evaluator caller explicitly requests
+ModelBaseline or a particular Case identity; no active UI selection, unnamed
+default case or case-to-case inheritance determines meaning. The baseline is the
+model's explicit property values, not a mandatory extra record for entering the
+first value. Inherited formulas read the requested effective case. An explicit
+Unbound override shadows a known base; clearing an override uses the base.
+
+The [executed comparison](release-analysis-context-experiment-20260911.md) passed
+218 assertions. Twenty cases with20 fixed/two varying inputs used62 binding rows
+under B versus480 under D, with identical results. Updating one shared assumption
+required one B binding versus20 D bindings. Reusable predicates eliminated D's
+threshold-edit disadvantage, so repeated formulas are not the reason for selection.
+
+Retain an explicit complete independent freeze/export for intentionally separate
+assumptions. It must capture effective values/formulas and the full exact definition
+environment, including package pins; copying only case rows leaves hidden live
+dependencies. Captured revisions and per-input origins must make propagation
+visible. Effective dependency/cycle validation and stale result handling must cover
+the whole requested context.
+
+Reject compulsory complete cases for ordinary shared-assumption modeling; retain
+their useful isolation as an explicit independent snapshot. Reject arbitrary
+inheritance and UI-dependent evaluation. Do not import the tiny experiment
+interpreter as production architecture. Exact check identity, type/operator
+algebra, source syntax, library closure/compatibility, transitions and public
+snapshot formats still require the coordinated precise contract. Current source7
+does not implement this decision.
+
+Revisit if complete text/native tasks expose unacceptable hidden propagation,
+wrong-context edits or inability to preserve reproducible independent studies.
+The comparison establishes semantic/text maintenance evidence, not human task
+timings or full quantity/library integration acceptance.