An Evidence-to-Decision Framework for Lunar Construction-Site Screening from Penetration Response

Planning lunar construction requires early screening decisions from sparse, instrument-dependent ground observations. This study presents a mechanics-informed evidence-to-decision procedure that separates direct observation, conventional mechanical interpretation, preliminary construction ground zoning, uncertainty closure, and asset-specific verification. Penetration profiles are compared only within a declared compatibility and depth domain. Before any additional state interpretation, density or porosity, grading, particle morphology, stratigraphy, terrain, clasts, disturbance, boundaries, probe configuration, and acquisition limits should be evaluated. A relative mechanical-state hypothesis, formerly described by the OCR* analogy, is optional and may be retained only when a compatible response contrast remains after those controls are evaluated and when it changes a defined action beyond the direct observations. It is not a conventional overconsolidation ratio or a design parameter. A worked Apollo 16 example compares compatible Self-Recording Penetrometer records from Station 4 and Station 10/ALSEP over the common upper 20 cm. The published envelopes show a lower, more variable response at Station 4 and a higher, less variable response at Station 10. Density, terrain, and stratigraphic evidence provide plausible conventional explanations, while incomplete co-location and instrument-limited depth prevent demonstrating a residual state effect. The example therefore supports a Class C directional hypothesis and separate preliminary ground units, but no ordinal relative-state class. Station 4 requires denser lateral coverage and stratigraphic correlation; Station 10 requires greater reaction capacity and deeper investigation. These actions follow from the integrated evidence rather than from an OCR* designation. The framework contributes an auditable stopping rule, an evidence ledger, and explicit measurements for upgrading, rejecting, or resolving each hypothesis. Design parameters and asset performance remain subject to standardized, project-specific testing.