{"id":"wrapping-validated-across-classification-boundary","text":"LSP's behavioral contract framework validates the wrapping taxonomy (Proxy→Decorator→Strategy) even as it crosses the GoF's structural-behavioral classification boundary, demonstrating that behavioral correctness guarantees are orthogonal to pattern categorization.","truth_value":"IN","source":"","source_url":"","source_hash":"","justifications":[{"type":"SL","antecedents":["lsp-validates-wrapping-taxonomy","structural-behavioral-wrapping-continuum"],"outlist":[],"label":"LSP contracts apply uniformly regardless of whether the wrapper is classified as structural or behavioral"}],"dependents":["decorator-composite-structural-unity-grounds-wrapping-taxonomy","lsp-classification-transcendent-correctness"],"metadata":{"source_type":"derived","review_result":"pass"},"created_at":"2026-06-17T18:53:05+00:00","updated_at":"2026-06-18T06:15:08+00:00","reviewed_at":"2026-06-18T06:15:08+00:00","verified_at":"","retracted_at":"","explanation":{"steps":[{"node":"wrapping-validated-across-classification-boundary","truth_value":"IN","reason":"SL justification valid","antecedents":["lsp-validates-wrapping-taxonomy","structural-behavioral-wrapping-continuum"],"label":"LSP contracts apply uniformly regardless of whether the wrapper is classified as structural or behavioral"},{"node":"lsp-validates-wrapping-taxonomy","truth_value":"IN","reason":"SL justification valid","antecedents":["lsp-contractual-completeness","wrapping-taxonomy-access-to-algorithm"],"label":"Every level of the Proxy→Decorator→Strategy wrapping depth axis relies on LSP's substitutability contracts"},{"node":"lsp-contractual-completeness","truth_value":"IN","reason":"SL justification valid","antecedents":["lsp-signature-rules-contravariant-covariant","lsp-preconditions-postconditions-invariants-rule","lsp-history-constraint-novel-contribution"],"label":"Three layers form a complete substitutability contract from syntactic to temporal"},{"node":"lsp-signature-rules-contravariant-covariant","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"lsp-preconditions-postconditions-invariants-rule","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"lsp-history-constraint-novel-contribution","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"wrapping-taxonomy-access-to-algorithm","truth_value":"IN","reason":"SL justification valid","antecedents":["proxy-decorator-wrapping-spectrum","skin-vs-guts-extension-spectrum"],"label":"Two depth-1 wrapping spectrums (Proxy-Decorator and Decorator-Strategy) connect at Decorator to form a continuous access→skin→guts taxonomy"},{"node":"proxy-decorator-wrapping-spectrum","truth_value":"IN","reason":"SL justification valid","antecedents":["proxy-vs-decorator-static-vs-dynamic","decorator-dynamic-alternative-to-subclassing","decorator-transparent-enclosure"],"label":"Three base beliefs on wrapping semantics unify into a spectrum from dynamic enhancement to static access control"},{"node":"proxy-vs-decorator-static-vs-dynamic","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"decorator-dynamic-alternative-to-subclassing","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"decorator-transparent-enclosure","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"skin-vs-guts-extension-spectrum","truth_value":"IN","reason":"SL justification valid","antecedents":["decorator-vs-strategy-skin-vs-guts","gof-template-method-vs-strategy-inheritance-vs-delegation","decorator-dynamic-alternative-to-subclassing"],"label":"Three patterns form a spectrum from external wrapping to internal algorithm replacement"},{"node":"decorator-vs-strategy-skin-vs-guts","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"gof-template-method-vs-strategy-inheritance-vs-delegation","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"structural-behavioral-wrapping-continuum","truth_value":"IN","reason":"SL justification valid","antecedents":["structural-patterns-boundary-vs-wrapping-spectra","wrapping-taxonomy-access-to-algorithm"],"label":"Structural patterns classify Proxy/Decorator as wrapping patterns; the wrapping taxonomy extends the same axis into behavioral territory (Strategy), so the GoF category boundary is porous"},{"node":"structural-patterns-boundary-vs-wrapping-spectra","truth_value":"IN","reason":"SL justification valid","antecedents":["adapter-facade-interface-boundary-pair","proxy-decorator-wrapping-spectrum"],"label":"Two orthogonal structural axes — translation across interfaces vs augmentation within a single interface"},{"node":"adapter-facade-interface-boundary-pair","truth_value":"IN","reason":"SL justification valid","antecedents":["facade-vs-adapter-new-vs-existing-interface","adapter-after-design-bridge-before-design","facade-defines-higher-level-interface-to-subsystem"],"label":"Two structural patterns addressing interface boundaries at complementary granularities"},{"node":"facade-vs-adapter-new-vs-existing-interface","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"adapter-after-design-bridge-before-design","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"},{"node":"facade-defines-higher-level-interface-to-subsystem","truth_value":"IN","reason":"premise"}]}}