A spectacle-maker intern says “we picked the framework, so this is intermediate fusion.” What is the correct correction?

Picking a modern framework is implementation tooling, not early, late, or intermediate fusion vocabulary. Refusing the spectacle-maker intern’s claim that framework choice is definitionally intermediate fusion is correct. Civic architecture reviews must keep fusion terms for how modalities meet, not for which library was imported.

Agreeing that any modern framework choice is intermediate fusion fails the vocabulary boundary. Agreeing that framework choice is the same as a Domain 3 paired row fails similarly. Replacing the framework with a fusion-type lecture before any code runs blocks implementation without fixing the misconception.

Exam caveat: frameworks implement; fusion types describe modality joining. Operational check: in civic design docs, list the framework under tooling and state fusion type separately based on how arms actually meet. Align this choice with the agency’s published multimodal runbook so civic operators can audit why the configuration was accepted. Record the civic software choice in the service README—named modules, inputs, and domain—so operators can replay the same path during audits and handoffs. Prefer explicit, reversible civic decisions over silent assumptions when multimodal data or software paths move toward production.