Possibility-Space Representation: From Minimum Adequacy to Bounded Comprehensiveness

CLKAPL as the development and evaluation process; Domain Science as a possible sustained research outcome Representations of possibilities can fail through consequential omissions, unjustified exclusions, excessive detail, or changes in the conditions under which they were assessed. This paper proposes a conceptual framework and evaluation protocol for developing possibility-space representations without assuming exhaustive access to their underlying spaces. Adequacy requires both a defensible assessment contract and demonstrated conformity. The contract specifies purpose, scope, interpretation of possibility, operating conditions, requirements, and evaluation procedures. Compact adequacy, deletion-minimality, and minimum-cost adequacy are distinguished. Bounded comprehensiveness concerns justified coverage obligations rather than unrestricted completeness. Expansion, compression, and restructuring are assessed through preservation requirements, a loss-and-change ledger, provenance, and reopening triggers. Seven constructed cases illustrate successful compression, prerequisite loss, irrelevant expansion, changing conditions, bounded enumeration, defective boundaries, and representation-dependent minimality. The protocol is mapped to corrected CLKAPL v1.1 while retaining separate publication, evidence-development, and adoption decisions. Proposed review prompts for sustained domain inquiry address methods, assessable claims, evidence, criticism, and cumulative correction. The contribution is a proposed methodological synthesis, not a new general theory of representation or a demonstrated improvement in decision performance. This record is prepared for a single co-release of the revised manuscript and its Scientific Review and Disposition Record. The review was conducted by a separate AI reviewer within the authoring workflow; it is not external peer review. The manuscript includes the claim register, source-positioning record, reusable assessment schemas, and a complete stipulated assessment with failed and unresolved variants. The release is a preliminary conceptual and methodological proposal. Comparative distinctiveness, close-predecessor coverage, empirical effectiveness, assessor agreement, documentation burden, and public persistent accessibility of the internal CLKAPL source versions remain open. Publication does not establish operational adoption readiness.