Similar observable patterns across heterogeneous systems can conceal differences in admissible transformations, resources, histories, and interpretation. This paper examines the conditions under which comparative inferences remain justified across such differences. It develops a task-relative account of comparative warrant organized around declared objects, partial relational mappings, selected invariants, conditioning regimes, available evidence, and criteria for revision. Conditional mathematical results establish properties of exact relational quotients, composition and structural preservation, resource-sensitive feasibility, history-sensitive continuation, partial identification, reciprocal translation, and ranking stability. Their proofs use established mathematical constructions and warrant physical or interpretive conclusions only through additional evidence. Comparative designs involving biological regulation, ecological networks, computational processes, and linguistic annotation distinguish documented findings from illustrative models and prospective empirical tests. The analysis further addresses the authority to select comparative categories and proposes a transparent warrant record for evaluating inference, uncertainty, and opportunities for correction. Comparison against established specialist workflows remains an open empirical task. The contribution is a coordinated framework for assessing the scope, preservation requirements, and revisability of cross-system claims, under ontological suspension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wanhong HUANG (2026) studied this question.