A.10.1:10 - Rationale

The pattern begins under A.10 because a source change matters through reliance, not through source succession alone. It is separate from A.10 because one known source-to-use account and the discovery of several partly unknown receivers have different first actions, coverage burdens, and stop rules.

The search frame solves the unknown-receiver problem without claiming a universal corpus. Complementary discovery solves a second asymmetry: source-side traces miss undeclared or equivalent premises, while receiver-side searches can miss transformed or aliased source content. The direct-use test then prevents either search route from becoming semantic authority.

The subject-application/result sequence is deliberately acyclic. The common method can identify where subject judgment is needed, but applying it does not establish engineering release, finance reconciliation, strategic consequence, assurance, permission, or other domain meaning. When a receiver needs an overview, completing it afterward preserves that use without replacing the independently governed results that justify it. A sufficient direct answer needs no duplicate completion.

No new kind or primitive relation is needed. Existing epistemes, direct relations, subject results, Work, plans, publications, and representations can carry every required claim. The method contributes a reusable action boundary, not an impact ontology.