A.10.1:1 - Problem Frame

Use this pattern when a claim-bearing source has been revised, replaced, refined, superseded, or challenged and the practical question is not merely whether the source is current, but which existing results or actions actually relied on the changed claim.

The primary EntityOfConcern is the bounded source-to-use structure: the changed claim and the exact direct use relations through which receiving results, decisions, specifications, plans, or actions depended on it. The practitioner is not asked to know every receiving use in advance. The first move is to state the source comparison and the present decision that bounds where a receiving use would count.

First useful move. Compare source episteme S0 with later or replacement episteme S1 for the present question Q. Establish the action-relevant claim difference or name what prevents that comparison.

When relevant meaning, applicability and access remain compatible, a repaired reference can be the completed result. It needs no multi-use search or additional subject-result record. A new URL, file, layout, revision label, carrier, or publication occurrence alone establishes no material claim change. Missing claim content or access leaves a scoped gap rather than establishing unchanged meaning.

When a material change makes several receiving uses worth discovering, state:

The material claim change is ΔC. Uses count for question Q within search frame F; the first known coverage limits are G.

What goes wrong if missed. One team replays every analysis because a version changed. Another preserves every result because the represented world did not change. A third follows citations or graph edges and calls every reachable item affected while missing an undeclared use of the premise. All three replace actual reliance with a proxy.

What this buys. The practitioner can finish with a repaired reference, a qualified subject result, or a scoped limit. When a common receiving question needs an affected-use account, it remains local, replayable, and honest about coverage. Inspected unaffected uses remain usable for their stated conditions; unresolved reliance and inaccessible surfaces bound the conclusion. Only depends branches enter the subject judgment, and reach stops at the last receiving action that can change.

Not this pattern when.

• Use A.10 when one already-known bounded reliance use is the whole question.
• Use C.2.1, E.17, or E.24.PUB when source identity, edition continuity, publication, carrier, form, audience, or availability is the live question and no several-use revalidation is needed.
• Use G.11 when currentness, decay, refresh planning, or refresh reporting is the live result.
• Use E.15 when the changed object is one FPF pattern edition; it retains Delta-Class, predecessor-function continuity, pattern checks, and its own change result.
• Use the direct subject pattern for a world-side change with no source change; examples include a changed sensor, market, organization, configuration, or situation affecting a law’s applicability.
• Use the direct subject pattern for the judgment or action needed after discovering an affected use. Section 4.5 identifies the governing contributions for those questions.

What changes in practice. A source change no longer means “redo everything” or “update the link.” The team first establishes whether claim content changed or names the missing fact. If affected-use discovery is needed, it states where uses count and how that area was searched, confirms reliance in receiving content, and revalidates only the smallest action-changing branch. A sufficient direct result closes its receiving question.