fix: add Quality Criteria Checklist to MHC anchor, fix cynebin typo in DE (#540)

Author: derchiefhb

docs/anchors/meaningful-human-control.adoc

@@ -55,4 +55,42 @@ Key Proponents:: Article 36 (coined the term, 2013), Noel Sharkey (five-level fr
 * <<luhmann-system-theory,Luhmann System Theory>>
 * <<simon-constructivism,Simon Constructivism>>
 * <<systemic-consulting,Systemic Consulting>>
+
+[discrete]
+== *Quality Criteria Checklist* (Tier-2 Justification)
+
+This anchor is classified as *Tier 2 — Needs qualification*. It is not self-standing; it requires domain context and explicit verification criteria to be meaningfully applied. The following checklist documents the qualification requirements mapped to Issue #540.
+
+. **Acceptance Criteria** (measurable)
+* High-stakes domain identified: yes/no — specify domain (weapons, medical, autonomous driving, critical infrastructure, algorithmic sentencing)
+* Autonomy level classified: yes/no — specify Sharkey level (L1–L5) for each critical function
+* Human operator identified: yes/no — specify role, training level, and decision authority
+* Accountability chain documented: yes/no — specify who decides, who approves, who audits
+* Legal/regulatory framework identified: yes/no — specify applicable law (IHL, EU AI Act, GDPR, etc.)
+
+. **Evidence Types Required**
+* System specification documenting autonomy boundaries and human-machine interaction points
+* Operator training and qualification records
+* Audit trail design demonstrating human accountability at each decision point
+* Risk assessment showing residual risks after human oversight measures
+* Legal review confirming compliance with applicable regulatory framework
+
+. **Minimum Documentation / Artifacts**
+* Human-Machine Interface (HMI) specification with override and abort mechanisms
+* Decision authority matrix (who decides what, under what conditions)
+* Operator situational awareness requirements (information feed, latency, decision time)
+* Graceful degradation protocol for communication loss or system failure
+* Test protocol validating human intervention capability under operational conditions
+
+. **Validation Methods**
+* Simulated scenario testing with time-pressure and information-degradation conditions
+* Red-team evaluation of human-override effectiveness
+* Independent audit of accountability chain completeness
+* Legal review against applicable IHL or regulatory requirements
+* Post-deployment monitoring plan for measuring MHC erosion over time
+
+. **Tier-2 Justification Summary**
+* *Why not Tier 3*: MHC cannot be evaluated without domain-specific context (weapons vs. medical vs. automotive). The same system may satisfy MHC in one domain and fail in another. Sharkey level L3 may be sufficient for cargo ships but not for lethal targeting.
+* *Why not Tier 1*: MHC is a well-established, multi-source concept with clear definition, consistent usage across domains, attributable origin, and rich conceptual activation.
+* *Qualification path*: To apply MHC, the user must answer: "Who controls what, with what information, under what constraints, and who is accountable?" The five criteria above operationalize this question.
 ====

docs/anchors/meaningful-human-control.de.adoc

@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ Key Proponents:: Article 36 (prägte den Begriff, 2013), Noel Sharkey (Fünf-Stu
 == *Verwandte Anker*:
 
 * <<regulated-environment,Regulierte Umgebung>>
-* <<cynebin-framework,Cynefin-Framework>>
+* <<cynefin-framework,Cynefin-Framework>>
 * <<luhmann-system-theory,Luhmann-Systemtheorie>>
 * <<simon-constructivism,Simon-Konstruktivismus>>
 * <<systemic-consulting,Systemische Beratung>>