I fully understand that maybe a PEWS is not always a PEWS, or at least, I am not the person to say whether that is the case 
But cant you really argue the same around other clinical concepts? Take a blood pressure, different blood pressure measurements are not comparanble depending on their state and/or protocol. Couldnt you argue that whether PEWS are comparable depends on your use case. Either your use case is more generic, ie interested only in the overall concept of pediatric early warning scores regardless of how they have been calculated, or your use case is more precise, in which case you use something like the PEWS protocol and/or data to distinguish them?
What would be the recommended approach for the Swedish PEWS if we have the different age intervals if we do not model the rule outside the archetype?
This does not seem to be a unique requirement for PEWS in Sweden either, this is what seems to be from the Scottish PEWS: “There are five age appropriate charts (0-11mths; 12-23mths; 2-4yrs; 511yrs ;> 12years).”
https://www.clinicalguidelines.scot.nhs.uk/ggc-paediatric-guidelines/ggc-guidelines/intensive-and-critical-care/paediatric-early-warning-score-pews/
If we come to the conclusion that there should be a single archetype within a Swe (or Scottish) context, couldnt that reasoning be used to argue a single international archetype as well? And modelling as separate archetypes, will that really help e.g. research where all PEWS are localized in their implementation?
PEWS is an example which we are currently looking at, but I think we could have the same discussion around many similar concepts. As you say, NEWS is the same, but seem to have less divergence in the rules.
I am a bit new to this, and especially the GDL side of things, so need to look into that a bit more and how that can be tied with the ADL. Thanks for the tip!