Bridge Checkpoint: Treat Inventory Mismatches as Evidence

Suppose the Java application expects three components but the ROS graph shows only two related runtime entities.

Do not immediately call the missing item a broken device.

Possible explanations include:

• the Java inventory is only a design-time list;
• the ROS entity has a different name;
• the relevant node is not running;
• the shell/environment cannot see the expected graph;
• the integration was never implemented;
• the physical device exists but is not represented in ROS.

Diagnose by layer

Write the mismatch as:

expected from: [source]
observed from: [source]
first layer where evidence differs: [layer]

Then list two competing hypotheses and the next observation that would distinguish them.

Do not use the mismatch itself as proof of root cause.

The bridge skill is preserving alternative explanations until evidence rules them out.