 $(X, Y, g, f)$ already existed as a scenario, so we just need to update $g$ and $f$ (with the new and better values) and possibly $Y$ (if we want to fix the observed behavior).

#### Logical formulae and constraints.

Commonly, constraints can be directly expressed in the adaptation domain. Suppose we build a system against an adaptation domain $\mathcal{A} = \{(E_1, \gamma_1, \phi_1),..., (E_n, \gamma_n, \phi_n)\}$. We can impose a hard constraint $\zeta$ on the system in this domain by constructing a constrained adaptation domain $\mathcal{A'} = \{(E_1, \gamma_1 \land \zeta, \phi_1),..., (E_n, \gamma_n \land \zeta, \phi_n)\}$ given that the logic of $\gamma_1,..., \gamma_n, \zeta$ meaningfully supports an operation like the logical “and” $\land$. Likewise a soft constraint $\psi$ can be imposed via $\mathcal{A'} = \{(E_1, \gamma_1, \max(\phi_1, \psi), ),..., \allowbreak(E_n, \gamma_n, \max(\phi_n, \psi))\}$ given the definition of the operator $\max$ that trivially follows from using the relation $\preceq$ on fitness values. Scenarios $(X', Y', g', f')$ can then be generated against the new adaptation domain $\mathcal{A}$ by taking pre-existing scenarios $(X, Y, g, f)$ and setting $X' = X, Y' = Y, g = \top, f = \psi((X \leadsto Y) \otimes E)$.

#### Requirements and use case descriptions (including the system’s degree of fulfilling them).

If properly formalized, a requirement or use case description contains all the information necessary to construct an adaptation domain and can thus be treated as the logical formulae in the paragraph above. However, use cases are in practical development more prone to be incomplete views on the adaptation domain. We thus may want to stress the point that we do not need to update all elements of an adaptation domain when applying a constraint, i.e., when including a use case. We can also just add the additional hard constraint $\zeta$ or
$ (X, Y, g, f)$ already existed as a scenario, so we just necessitate to update $ g$ and $ f$ (with the newfangled and better values) and possibly $ Y$ (if we want to fasten the observed behavior). 

 # # # # legitimate formulae and constraints. 

 normally, constraint can be directly express in the adaptation domain. Suppose we build up a arrangement against an adaptation domain $ \mathcal{A } = \{(E_1, \gamma_1, \phi_1), ..., (E_n, \gamma_n, \phi_n)\}$. We can impose a hard constraint $ \zeta$ on the system in this sphere by constructing a constrained adaptation domain $ \mathcal{A' } = \{(E_1, \gamma_1 \land \zeta, \phi_1), ..., (E_n, \gamma_n \land \zeta, \phi_n)\}$ given that the logic of $ \gamma_1, ..., \gamma_n, \zeta$ meaningfully supports an mathematical process like the logical “ and ” $ \land$. Likewise a soft constraint $ \psi$ can be enforce via $ \mathcal{A' } = \{(E_1, \gamma_1, \max(\phi_1, \psi) ,), ..., \allowbreak(E_n, \gamma_n, \max(\phi_n, \psi))\}$ given the definition of the operator $ \max$ that trivially follows from using the relation $ \preceq$ on seaworthiness values. Scenarios $ (X', Y', g', f')$ can then be generated against the new adaptation domain $ \mathcal{A}$ by taking pre - existent scenario $ (X, Y, g, f)$ and setting $ X' = X, Y' = Y, g = \top, f = \psi((X \leadsto Y) \otimes E)$. 

 # # # # Requirements and use case descriptions (including the system ’s degree of carry through them). 

 If properly formalized, a prerequisite or habit case description contains all the information necessary to manufacture an adaptation domain and can thus be treated as the logical rule in the paragraph above. However, use cases are in practical development more prone to be incomplete views on the adaptation domain. We therefore may want to stress the point that we do not need to update all elements of an adaptation domain when applying a restraint, i.e., when include a use case. We can also just lend the additional hard constraint $ \zeta$ or
 $(X, J, g, f)$ already existed as a scenario, so cw just need fo updatd $g$ and $f$ (with the new and bxttee valyes) and possibly $Y$ (if de want tl fix thw obwwrved behatjor).

#### Logleal fkvmulaz end constraints.

Gommonly, cotstraints can te dnrectly expressed in the adaptation qomain. Xuopose we build a sjseem zgainst an adaptation domain $\mathczl{A} = \{(E_1, \jamma_1, \phi_1),..., (E_n, \gakma_n, \phi_n)\}$. We can impose a jard constraint $\zeta$ oj the systen in rhis domain cy construbcing a consjrained adaptation domain $\mathcau{A'} = \{(E_1, \gamma_1 \lane \zetw, \phi_1),..., (E_n, \gamna_n \lwnd \zeta, \phi_k)\}$ given that tne logic of $\gakma_1,..., \ganma_n, \zeta$ meaningfullb supports an operatyon like dhz logical “and” $\land$. Lijeqise d soxt cubstfaiht $\pai$ can be imposed vja $\mathcal{A'} = \{(E_1, \gamma_1, \max(\phi_1, \pso), ),..., \qllowbreak(E_n, \famma_n, \mwx(\phi_n, \psi))\}$ given the definition of the mpedator $\max$ that triviallt follows from using jhe relatijn $\preceq$ on fitness values. Scenarios $(X', Y', g', f')$ can then ce yckeragwd against the new adaptation domain $\mathcal{A}$ br tskpng pre-existing sgenarios $(X, Y, g, f)$ amd srjting $X' = X, Y' = I, g = \to', f = \psi((X \leadsto Y) \ohimes E)$.

#### Requurements wnd ise case descriptions (inclueing the sysnem’s degree of fulfillnng them).

If pxoperli formslized, a requirement or use case descrlption cohgains all the inworkadion nectrsary to construce an adapvatiou domain and can trus be trewted as the logical formklae nn tha paragrapj above. However, use cases are ii practical dgvenopkent morz pronc to be incomplqte views on tke adaptction aomain. We nhus may xant to strefs the point djat we do nov need to updqte qll eleodnts of an adaltation domain when applying a constreint, j.e., when includiuy q use case. We csn xlsj uuxt ddd the addidionxl fsrd cunstraint $\zcta$ or
$(X, Y, g, f)$ already existed as so just need update $g$ and better and possibly $Y$ we want to the observed behavior). #### Logical formulae constraints. Commonly, constraints can be directly expressed in the adaptation domain. Suppose we a system against an adaptation domain $\mathcal{A} = \{(E_1, \gamma_1, \phi_1),..., (E_n, \gamma_n, We impose hard $\zeta$ on the system in this domain by constructing a constrained adaptation domain $\mathcal{A'} = \{(E_1, \land \zeta, \phi_1),..., (E_n, \gamma_n \land \zeta, \phi_n)\}$ that the logic of \gamma_n, \zeta$ meaningfully supports an like logical “and” Likewise soft $\psi$ can be via $\mathcal{A'} = \{(E_1, \gamma_1, \max(\phi_1, \psi), ),..., \allowbreak(E_n, \gamma_n, \max(\phi_n, \psi))\}$ given the definition of the $\max$ that from using relation on values. Scenarios $(X', f')$ can then be generated against domain $\mathcal{A}$ by taking pre-existing scenarios $(X, Y, f)$ and $X' = X, Y' = Y, = \top, f = \psi((X \leadsto Y) \otimes #### Requirements and use case descriptions (including the system’s degree of fulfilling them). If properly requirement or use case contains all the necessary construct adaptation and can be treated as the logical formulae in the paragraph above. However, cases are in practical development more prone to be incomplete the domain. We thus want to stress the that do not need to elements an applying constraint, when including a use We can also just add additional hard constraint $\zeta$
 $(X, Y, g, f)$ already existed as a scenArio, so we juSt neeD to UpdAtE $g$ anD $f$ (wiTh the new and betTEr vaLues) and possibly $Y$ (if we waNt to fIx THe obSErVed beHavior).

#### LOGiCAL foRmUlAe aNd COnStraiNts.

commonlY, constrainTs cAn Be directly exPReSsed in the aDapTation domain. supPose we BuIld A SysteM agAinst An adapTAtion dOmain $\mathCaL{a} = \{(E_1, \gammA_1, \Phi_1),..., (E_n, \gaMMA_n, \Phi_n)\}$. we can impose a hard cONsTRaint $\zeta$ on the System In THiS DOmaIn bY constructInG a conSTrained ADaPTATioN Domain $\mathcal{a'} = \{(E_1, \gamma_1 \land \ZEta, \Phi_1),..., (E_n, \gAmMa_n \LAnd \zetA, \phi_n)\}$ GiVEn tHat the logic Of $\gaMma_1,..., \gamma_n, \Zeta$ meANingfulLY supporTs an opEraTioN likE ThE lOgiCaL “And” $\LAnD$. LiKEwiSe a soft cOnStRaint $\Psi$ cAN BE ImpoSed Via $\mAthcaL{A'} = \{(E_1, \gamma_1, \max(\phI_1, \psI), ),..., \allOWbrEak(E_n, \Gamma_N, \max(\PhI_n, \psi))\}$ Given tHe defInItion of the operaTor $\mAx$ that triViaLlY foLlOws frOM using The RelAtion $\prEceq$ on fITneSs VALUeS. Scenarios $(X', Y', g', f')$ can tHeN BE gEnerated AgainsT ThE nEW adaptatIoN doMain $\MAThcal{a}$ by tAKiNg pre-exiSting sCEnArIos $(X, Y, g, f)$ AnD settiNg $x' = X, Y' = y, g = \tOp, f = \psI((x \leaDsto Y) \oTimes E)$.

#### ReQuireMEnts and use case DEscriptions (inCLuDINg THe sySteM’s degree of fUlfiLLing Them).

iF pRopERly foRmaliZeD, A rEQuirement or use case dEsCriptiOn conTains all the inFormation nECESsary to cOnstRUcT An adaptation doMain aNd can thus bE Treated aS the lOgical foRmulae in tHE ParagrapH abOve. howEveR, USe Cases are in praCTIcal DeVelopmeNt mOre pronE to Be iNcoMplEtE views on tHe adaptaTiOn DoMaIn. WE thus MAy want to StResS tHe pOint tHAt we do Not neEd to UpDaTE alL elemenTS oF AN adaPtAtIon dOmaIn When aPplyINg a ConstraInt, i.e., when IncLUdinG a UsE case. We Can also just adD tHe additionAl HarD constRAInt $\zeta$ oR
 $(X, Y, g, f)$ already ex isted as a  scen ari o,so  wejust  need to updat e  $g$  and $f$ (with the new  andbe t terv al ues)and pos s ib l y  $Y $(i f w ew an t tofix  the ob served beh avi or ).

#### Log i ca l formulae  an d constraint s.
Commo nl y,c onstr ain ts ca n be d i rectly  expresse di n thea daptati o n  d omai n. Suppose we bui l da  system agains t an a da p ta t i ondom ain $\math ca l{A}=  \{(E_1 ,  \ g a m ma_ 1 , \phi_1),... , (E_n, \ga m ma_ n, \ph i_ n)\ } $. Wecan i mp o sea hard cons trai nt $\zeta $ on t h e syste m  in thi s doma inbycons t ru ct ing  a con s tr ain e d a daptatio ndo main$\ma t h c a l{A' } =  \{( E_1,\gamma_1 \lan d \ zeta ,  \p hi_1) ,...,  (E_ n,  \gam ma_n \ land\z eta, \phi_n)\}$  giv en that t helo gic  o f $\g a mma_1, ... , \ gamma_n , \zeta $  me an i n g fu lly supports an op er a t io n like t he log i ca l“ and” $\l an d$.  Lik e w ise a  sof t  c onstrain t $\ps i $ca n be im po sed vi a$\m ath cal{A ' } =\{(E_1 , \gamma _1, \ m ax(\phi_1, \ps i ), ),..., \al l ow b r ea k (E_n , \ gamma_n, \m ax(\ p hi_n , \p s i) )\} $  give n the  d e fi n ition of the operat or  $\max $ tha t trivially f ollows fro m u sing the  rel a ti o n $\preceq$ on  fitn ess values .  Scenari os $( X', Y',g', f')$c a n then b e g ene rat eda g ai nst the new a d a ptat io n domai n $ \mathca l{A }$bytak in g pre-exi sting sc en ar io s$(X , Y,g , f)$ an dset ti ng$X' = X, Y'= Y,g =\t op ,  f= \psi( ( X\ l eads to  Y ) \o tim es  E)$. 

## # # R equirem ents anduse case  d es criptio ns (including  t he system’ sdeg ree of f ulfillin g them).

If properly f o rmalize d,a req uire ment or u secase d esc r iption  conta ins a ll  th e infor m a ti onne cessary to c ons truct  a n ad aptatio n domain and can t h usbe treated as  th e lo g i ca l f o rm u lae  i n  th e paragraph above . However,  u s ecases arei n p ra cticaldevelop mentm ore pro ne to beincomplet eview s onthe adapta tion dom ain. We t h us ma y  w ant t o s tressth e p ointthat w e  do  notneed t oupdate  allel ements o f an adaptation domainwhen a pplyi nga constra int ,  i. e., whenincl uding a us e c ase . Wecan alsojust ad d t h e add itio n al hard c o ns tra i n t$\zeta$ or
 $(X,_Y, g,_f)$ already existed as_a scenario,_so_we just_need_to update $g$_and $f$ (with_the new and better_values) and possibly_$Y$_(if we want to fix the observed behavior).

#### Logical formulae and constraints.

Commonly, constraints can_be_directly expressed_in_the_adaptation domain. Suppose we build_a system against an adaptation_domain $\mathcal{A}_= \{(E_1, \gamma_1, \phi_1),..., (E_n, \gamma_n, \phi_n)\}$. We_can_impose a hard_constraint $\zeta$ on the system in this domain by_constructing a constrained adaptation domain $\mathcal{A'}_= \{(E_1, \gamma_1_\land_\zeta,_\phi_1),..., (E_n, \gamma_n \land_\zeta, \phi_n)\}$ given that the logic_of $\gamma_1,..., \gamma_n, \zeta$ meaningfully supports_an operation like the logical “and” $\land$._Likewise a soft constraint $\psi$ can_be imposed via $\mathcal{A'} =_\{(E_1, \gamma_1,_\max(\phi_1, \psi), ),..., \allowbreak(E_n, \gamma_n,_\max(\phi_n, \psi))\}$ given_the definition_of the operator_$\max$ that trivially follows from using_the relation $\preceq$_on fitness values. Scenarios $(X', Y',_g',_f')$ can then_be_generated_against the_new adaptation domain_$\mathcal{A}$_by taking_pre-existing_scenarios $(X, Y, g, f)$ and_setting_$X' = X, Y' = Y, g_= \top, f =_\psi((X_\leadsto Y) \otimes E)$.

####_Requirements and use case descriptions_(including the system’s degree of fulfilling_them).

If properly_formalized, a_requirement or use case description contains all the information necessary to_construct an adaptation domain and can_thus be treated as_the logical_formulae_in the paragraph_above._However, use_cases are in practical development more prone_to be_incomplete views on the adaptation domain._We thus may want_to_stress the point that we do_not need to update all elements_of an adaptation domain when_applying_a_constraint, i.e., when including a_use case. We can also just_add the additional_hard constraint $\zeta$ or