Case-Identity and Constraint-Identity in Civic Evaluation: Why the Same Civic Object Is Not Always the Same Evaluative Case

This artifact distinguishes civic-object identity, constraint-identity, and case-identity in civic evaluation. The artifact argues that the same civic object is not always the same evaluative case. Civic-object identity tells us what people are pointing at. Constraint-identity tells us whether the same binding civic content remains the same across variation. Case-identity asks whether the civic object has become one evaluative case for later judgment. This distinction matters because later civic evaluation cannot responsibly classify, compare, preserve, or score an object merely because the public object has been identified. A bill, opinion, order, agency action, public statement, omission, or institutional act may remain the same object while readers construct different evaluative cases from it. If the evaluative case has not been resolved, later judgment may look precise while quietly shifting among different constructions of the same civic object. The artifact also clarifies that case-identity does not add a new Structural Flow hinge and cannot be absorbed by Recognition. Recognition preserves already-carried binding content across locally variable descriptions or uptake surfaces. Case-identity does a different job: it requires the civic object to become one evaluative object before later civic judgment acts on it as one case. This is not a scoring method, legal advice, a complete calculus of civics, or a replacement for constitutional doctrine. It is a civic-theory foundation artifact for disciplined evaluation within the developing Calculus of Civics.