cuneiform

Organised sign configurations

Record the visible basis for grouping marks into signs, including alternatives involving damage, decoration or imitation.

1. Which combinations of wedge heads, strokes, orientations and spacing support segmentation into cuneiform signs? definition
2. What evidence distinguishes these configurations from accidental impressions, decoration or a modern imitation? boundary

Candidate sign traditions

Record candidate traditions and the diagnostic evidence for each without deriving language solely from appearance.

1. Which sign forms and conventions support each proposed cuneiform tradition, and which contradict it? definition
2. Which examined sign lists or attributed inscriptions supply the comparisons, and how closely do they match the proposed period and region? provenance

Sign boundaries

Record alternative segmentations where crowding, overlapping impressions or damage obscure sign boundaries.

1. Which visible marks belong to each proposed sign, and where could the same marks support a different segmentation? boundary
2. Which wedge orientations, relative positions or spacing measurements would discriminate between those segmentations? measurement

Form-to-sign mapping

Preserve the observed form alongside sign-list identifiers and any uncertainty introduced by normalisation.

1. Which sign identities remain compatible with the surviving wedges, using which named sign list and edition? provenance
2. Would normalising this form erase a distinction relevant to this tradition, scribal practice or reading? boundary

Supported reading sequence

Record sign, line, column and surface order, retaining unresolved transitions.

1. What supports the proposed orientation and sequence of signs, lines, columns and inscribed surfaces? definition
2. Where do rulings, changes of orientation or discontinuities require separate reading sequences or alternative continuations? boundary

Functional classification

Record whether a sign is being treated as phonetic, logographic, determinative, numerical, metrological or otherwise functional, where those distinctions apply.

1. Which contextual evidence supports the proposed function of this sign in the identified tradition? definition
2. For a proposed numerical or metrological expression, which notation and unit conventions must be established before calculating a quantity? action

Contextual reading candidates

Retain competing values where graphic, grammatical or lexical evidence does not select a single reading.

1. What linguistic evidence supports the language assignment independently of the script identification? definition
2. Which candidate sign values fit the local spelling and grammatical context, and which alternatives remain unresolved? boundary

Evidence-linked transliteration

Connect each transliterated or restored element to its location, editorial convention and justification.

1. Which transliteration elements represent visible signs, uncertain identifications, supplied signs or unresolved gaps, under which conventions? provenance
2. What examined parallel or linguistic constraint supports each restoration, and is that support sufficient to use it in a translation? action

Legibility and next observation

Locate ambiguous wedges and identify the observation most likely to resolve them.

1. For each uncertain sign, does the limitation arise from surface loss, an obscured impression, image lighting, viewing angle or conflicting copies? measurement
2. Which targeted image, three-dimensional view or specialist collation could resolve the specific competing readings? action

Preserved and lost distinctions

Record whether aligned passages and encoded signs preserve the distinctions required by the intended use.

1. Are compared records separate ancient witnesses, reproductions of one inscription or derivative editions, and what establishes that relationship? provenance
2. Which graphic variants, uncertain signs or editorial distinctions would be lost by the proposed character encoding or normalised transcription? boundary

Kinds and varieties

Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.

1. Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of cuneiform this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Identifiers and schemes

Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.

1. Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of cuneiform this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Standards and regulation

Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.

1. Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of cuneiform this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Real-world use

Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.

1. Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of cuneiform this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Typical measurements

Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.

1. Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of cuneiform this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Failure modes and hazards

Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.

1. Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of cuneiform this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Regional variation

Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.

1. Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of cuneiform this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance

Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart

Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.

1. Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of cuneiform this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance