Carry-Over and Cross-Domain Transfer in Support Regimes: Preservation, Mapping, and Rejection Conditions for Support-Dependent Claims

Carry-Over and Cross-Domain Transfer in Support Regimes: Preservation, Mapping, and Rejection Conditions for Support-Dependent Claims completes the domain-independent Support Regime architecture by defining the conditions under which a support-dependent status established in one domain may be carried over, preserved, mapped, or transferred into another. Its central object, SupportRegimeTransferStructure(Claim), specifies the declared architecture through which source-domain status, target-domain request, mapping relation, transformation class, preservation criterion, carry-over structure, target evidence, scale relation, evaluation window, horizon, failure condition, and rejection condition are evaluated before transfer status may be assigned.

The paper addresses the distinction between source-domain validity and target-domain jurisdiction. A support claim may be satisfied in its source domain while its proposed target-domain counterpart remains underdeclared, failed, restricted, or outside jurisdiction. Preservation of a source object does not establish preservation of a target object; terminological similarity does not establish identity; formal mapping does not establish external realization; and source-domain evidence does not automatically constitute target-domain evidence.

The framework also defines CarryOverStructure(Claim) as a nested preservation component within SupportRegimeTransferStructure(Claim). Carry-over evaluates whether a source condition remains recoverably retained through declared source, propagation, retention, threshold, carrier where required, transformation, evidence, and rejection conditions. Carry-over is therefore narrower than transfer: it concerns preservation of what is available to be transferred, whereas transfer concerns assignment of scientific status in the target domain.

The architecture distinguishes carry-over from continuation, mapping from identity, source validity from target validity, transferability from transfer, evidence mapping from target evidence, scale relation from scale invariance, formal preservation from external realization, and readability from control. TransferStatus is assignable only when both the preservation burden and the target-domain mapping and evidence burdens are adequately declared.

The framework permits partial and restricted transfer rather than forcing a binary identity relation between domains. Source-domain success may coexist with absent target evidence; a mapping may exist while preservation fails; carry-over may be satisfied while the requested target status remains too strong; a scale relation may be only partial; and formal preservation may remain valid while external realization is unassigned. In such cases, transfer status may fail, remain underdeclared, become restricted, or require narrowing of the target claim.

The framework is domain-independent and is relevant wherever scientific claims move across domains, scales, models, evidence structures, support regimes, or transformation classes. It connects to model transfer, causal inference, cross-scale reasoning, viability, information transfer, biological and ecological comparison, infrastructural and computational mappings, and other cases in which local validity is proposed to carry beyond its original jurisdiction. Domain comparison remains distinct from status transfer.

The public function of the paper is classificatory. It determines when a support-dependent status may be carried over, preserved, mapped, supported, restricted, narrowed, or rejected in a target domain without supplying a technology-transfer procedure, implementation pathway, replication protocol, intervention method, strategic transfer plan, prediction system, control architecture, or external-realization claim.