A07 — Frozen instruments, provenance, and versioned identity

• Input [inference]: A framework version and the evaluation or evidence run that depends on it remaining unchanged during use.
• Operation [direct]: "Published versions are immutable. A framework version is frozen during evaluation. Changes are introduced only in subsequent versions" (CONSTITUTION.md, Frozen Versions).
• Output [inference]: A versioned, frozen instrument identity that downstream evaluation or evidence work can reference without ambiguity about which version was used; illustrated in practice by CURRENT_STATE.md's "Current Instrument: Comparator v3.1.0 frozen" and "Current Explainability Layer: Comparator 3.2.0."
• Scope conditions [direct]: Applies while a framework version is under evaluation (CONSTITUTION.md, Frozen Versions).
• Failure conditions [inference]: A frozen instrument is altered during the evaluation it governs, or a later version's changes are not introduced as a distinct subsequent version — inferred as the direct complement of the freeze rule rather than stated as a named failure mode.
• Predicted effect [absent]: No controlled directional outcome is stated for this candidate in the permitted canonical set.
• Measurement [absent]: No metric is defined.
• Implementation test [absent]: No verification or refusal procedure (e.g., blocking comparisons against non-frozen instruments) is described in the permitted canonical set.
• Decision rights [absent]: No canonical owner of freeze/version decisions is named in the permitted set.
• Uncertainty handling [absent]: Not addressed.
• Verification [absent]: No canonical verification procedure is specified.
• Provenance [direct]: "Preserve historical records of superseded and failed hypotheses when they contribute to understanding" (CONSTITUTION.md, Knowledge Promotion, Implications).
• Implementation cost [absent]: Not addressed.
• Limitations [direct]: The Knowledge Promotion section states ideas "become part of the Foundation only after accumulating sufficient evidence, surviving meaningful challenge, and demonstrating usefulness through replication or repeated validation," implying that supersession is evidence-gated, but no comprehensive supersession or append-history procedure is described anywhere in the permitted canonical set — only the freeze principle and the historical-preservation implication are stated.

Statement basis

• Direct: The freeze rule, its scope, and the historical-preservation implication.
• Inference: Input/output framing and the failure-condition complement.
• Proposal-only: None identified within the permitted canonical set for this candidate.
• Absent: Predicted effect, measurement, implementation test, decision rights, uncertainty handling, verification procedure, implementation cost, and any digest/hash/certification mechanism.