A.10:4 - Solution — recover exact objects before drawing the path

A.10:4.1 - Start with the relied-on claim

Name the C.2.1 episteme and select the claim or proposition being relied on from its ClaimGraph. Recover that claim’s subject, interpretation basis, polarity or status when current, and uncertainty or qualification when relevant. If the claim is used as evidence for another target claim, name that target separately under A.2.4. When the selected claim states a local result, use the pattern that defines or tests that result: C.16 for measurement, C.28 for causal support, A.19 for comparison or selection, G.4 for an acceptance-clause application, A.21 for a gate decision, C.11 for an option-set choice, and the applicable formal, diagnostic, conformance, identity, permission, or commitment pattern. When role appears in a technical result, use E.10.ROLE to select the exact local system-role-kind classification, U.SystemRoleAssignment occurrence or state, relation among system-role kinds, declaration, participation, interface, or representation claim before citing its governor.

A source episteme may contain several claims. Keep an ordinary source citation ordinary; use C.2.1:4.2.5 ClaimAddress only when an exact intrinsic claim reference is needed and resolves uniquely. If that needed address does not resolve uniquely, follow C.2.1’s whole-episteme or separately identified claim-episteme alternative.

A carrier, citation, provenance entry, or A.10 classification does not constitute the result episteme or the domain result. When their identity is live, use C.2.1 for the result episteme and the direct subject pattern for the domain result; use A.15.PROD when inception through Work is claimed.

A.10:4.2 - Ground source, carrier, publication, and representation

Recover the selected source episteme and its edition and claim content. When availability, form, or carrier matters, separately recover the EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence, publication form, carrier, or face involved, together with any copy, extraction, or transformation between source and use. Use E.24.PUB for publication, form, and carrier relations, E.17 for multi-view publication, and C.29 for mathematical representation correspondences. The descriptive graph points outward to those independently established objects and relations.

Carrier authenticity, integrity, or provenance may support only its named origin, history, build, or transformation claim. It does not imply truth, safety, approval, release, permission, assurance, or work occurrence.

A.10:4.3 - Separate method, work, participants, and local result

Under A.3.2, an already identified episteme is a U.MethodDescription when its EntityOfConcern is one admitted U.Method and it makes at least one substantive claim about that Method as a way of doing. Generic participants, parameters, effects—including intended effects—and operating conditions can supply such claims; a name, date, or approval alone cannot. A particular work-plan intention, actual-participant binding, or proof/test occurrence remains a separate claim. The description has no actual-participant slots, and its generic method claims do not establish that Work occurred.

Source production, measurement, verification, interpretation, transformation, query, review, publication, or later reliance may be described ordinarily. When the current claim says that one of these is a dated U.Work occurrence, first recover each actual performer’s A.13 core and independently admit the occurrence through A.15.1 from its performance history, enacted Method, extent, and containing-System relation. Add F.6 afterward only when the evidence account also needs precise assignment-bound attribution. The A.13 core always includes the obtaining assignment. A short account may omit an assignment identifier unused by the receiving claim only when the complete core and all consumed relations remain recoverable; a precise attribution claim additionally requires the F.6 facts. Affected or evaluated referents, resources, and actual participants enter only through direct subject relations or A.6.1 operation-application bindings. Capability, authority, and responsibility remain separate predicates. A compatible signature, plan, description, log schema, or graph node establishes none of those bindings.

For every cited result, name the pattern that defines or tests it and its C.2.1 result episteme separately. The provenance path may represent exact Work, participants, entities, domain results, result epistemes, and outcomes only after their direct relations are established. Relate Work to a returned or produced value only through an exact A.6.1 application binding, one exact local A.15.PROD claim, or a direct subject predicate under its own pattern; otherwise show the two facts separately and return the reason-specific non-assertability result if that connection is needed.

A.10:4.4 - Build a descriptive evidence-provenance path

The minimum A.10 path records only what the bounded use needs:

Graph nodes retain their admitted kinds. Each edge cites one independently established direct relation; no generic evidences, verifiedBy, validatedBy, measuredBy, producedByWork, or criterion-participant relation is minted as a fallback. A project may label display edges for navigation, but the label has no ontic force.

A.10:4.5 - Classify bounded reliance

The canonical local RelianceDisposition member set is exactly: pass, degrade, abstain, reopen, evidence-needed, assurance-needed, and blocked-current-use. pass supports only the exact bounded use; degrade supports only the named narrower or reversible use. assurance-needed says that A.10 alone cannot support the attempted use because a direct domain rule or receiving decision requires a separately stated assurance claim. It creates no assurance claim and does not open B.3 until that claim is current. No disposition is claim truth, CV.Status, gate decision, selector outcome, approval, permission, release, assurance, or Work authorization.

When an actual named assurance claim is current, use B.3 for that assurance question. A.10 continues to supply the exact source and provenance paths but does not issue the assurance result. Consequential evidence use without such a claim stays with the direct safety, access, status, gate, permission, release, responsibility, or controlled-action pattern.

A reliance limitation qualifies the attempted use. When advice must also say what to do next, use C.11.DUA to compose a feasible continuation from that limitation. Further inquiry is one possible continuation. Retain the unsupported claim boundary when choosing a narrower use, another action or a stop. Use an already adequate C.11 choice directly.

A.10:4.5a - Route unlike exploratory inputs without changing their kind

When an observation, objective, former cue, novelty characterization, or similarly interesting item is proposed as a premise for an exploratory or creative move, recover the item under its direct owner before applying this bounded reliance classification. Do not rename every item signal or cue, and do not create a second premise-disposition vocabulary.

The composition retains the direct source result and an existing RelianceDisposition when bounded reliance is current. A later ChoiceResult is required only for an actual option/probe comparison under C.11. If the source claim is already qualified and the current C.11 record can use it directly, stop; no intermediate premise record is required.

A.10:4.6 - Currentness, actual use, and graph limits

Source availability and source currentness are distinct. Record issue/effective windows, supersession, revocation, source-order rules, and the G.11 currentness result when a use depends on them.

Actual reliance requires one exact premise, reference, decision-use, operation-argument, or other direct relation to the result episteme. When that reliance is also claimed as dated U.Work, recover the Work independently. Storage, indexing, citation, graph membership, visibility, or co-location establishes neither reliance nor performed Work.

Part-whole, temporal, production, publication, representation, provenance, participation, and reliance relations must each be established separately. The A.10 graph may cite them together for replay but never substitutes one for another.

A.10:4.6a - Authority-reliance use of ordinary A.10 evidence-provenance paths

Use this subsection when an authority-looking carrier is being relied on. The A.10 path represents one named claim, its exact sources and direct relations, and one bounded use; it is not an authority relation. If the Work occurrence, gate decision, speech act, commitment, permission, exact system-role assignment, assignment-state assertion, or other required relation already exists in a project-side source, recover that object by value and let the graph cite it.

Start with A10-lite for source-finding, orientation, learning, and bounded reversible probes. It is sufficient only when these fields supply the evidence required by the claim and its direct rule; reversibility alone does not establish sufficiency:

Minimum evidence-provenance path for routine reliance:

Expanded fields are collected only insofar as they decide the current reliance question. Evidence depth follows consequence severity, reuse, contestability, cross-context movement, and the evidence relation required for the attempted claim. Do not expand a source-finding note into a full evidence dossier, and do not collect every expanded field merely because a carrier is copied, generated, credential-like, provenance-like, or cross-context.

Adversarial misuse guard. When a carrier appears to support a claim, name what it appears to establish and any live competing explanation. An apparently current credential may have an authentic carrier but a stale displayed status; a copied approval may be genuine but concern a different scope or window. Test the source, issuer, or currentness predicate and relying context that distinguish that explanation; include source-side Work and precise attribution only when the claim uses them. Authenticity and provenance can contribute to their named claims, but appearance or provenance alone does not establish additional truth, currentness, or authority. If the required predicate has no governor, return that A.6.RCD gap.

Data-minimization and privacy boundary. Preserve the minimum source, provenance, and direct-relation account sufficient for the intended use. Use redacted, hashed, scoped, or access-controlled carrier refs when raw material would expose personal identity, access tokens, cryptographic proof payloads, tenant identifiers, security logs, incident details, internal release metadata, audit trails, privileged reviewer identities, sensitive model provenance, or sensitive data provenance. Redaction creates no source relation; it must preserve enough recoverability for the relying context.

Case repairs:

If the evidence-provenance path is incomplete, A.10 reports the missing source, carrier, work, rule for the cited result, direct relation, or G.11 currentness fact and narrows or blocks only the attempted use. Possible continuations include source-finding only, reopen original carrier, request issuer or status verification, refresh the source query, mark stale or contested, narrow the attempted P2W class or reliance claim, proceed only with a reversible local probe under an explicit work plan, or block the unsupported use.

Missing source-relation repair assignment. If the relying actor cannot recover or verify the source relation, first name the missing relation or source-bearing record and the affected use. Source-finding, a request, narrowing, or a stop may be the complete continuation. If the selected continuation allocates or requests repair, recover the recipient and the independently obtaining project-side responsibility, allocation, permission, or commitment relation that the instruction consumes. An assignment to an admitted System must identify that System and its actual assignment basis. Plan or request the future repair under its applicable planning or assignment rule; this is not an assertion that repair Work has occurred. The source-side objects and relations identified above remain separate facts, not responsibility by source label or form. Return an exact A.6.RCD missing governor only when the selected assignment claim requires that missing predicate. Source exposure and the affected party’s challenge remain available independently of who may later perform repair.

Repeated missing-source-relation indicator. If A.10 results for the same visible carrier family repeatedly report stale, contested, missing-source-relation, or no-currentness findings, record a source-relation repair action: instrument the source relation, expose the carrier field that carries the source-bearing relation, expose decision-log refs, add currentness checks and status checks, preserve claim-bound source relations for generated or copied outputs, require credential views to show status windows and currentness windows, require model documentation and data documentation to expose intended-use and evaluation-condition fields, or require provenance labels and attestation labels to name their bounded claim type. Repetition is an indicator that the source relation or display needs repair; it is not a reason to make each acting user rebuild the evidence-provenance path manually.

Display guidance for evidence and currentness: an evidence or status display should show the claim or effect, evidence carrier, the selected source relation and its recoverable reference, time window and freshness when they affect use, relying context, and any locally plausible unsupported Work use, reliance use, claim, or effect that the display must distinguish. A display that can only show source availability should say so; it must not imply approval, permission, gate passage, Work occurrence, or assurance.

Incident-learning fields for evidence and currentness overread: visible carrier or publication face, intended claim or effect, missing evidence-provenance field, evidence carrier named by value, exact source-side predicate actually used, ordinary method trace or admitted Work trace, and needed time relation; any live rival relevant to the incident; current safe disposition; and the smallest upstream repair to the implicated source relation, instrumentation, or publication. Identify the selected source episteme and the publication occurrence, form, carrier, or source display when that object needs repair; the field definitions above determine which facts must remain recoverable.

Contestability and redress relation: when an evidence-provenance path or source-currentness relation affects person or team status, access, responsibility, a compliance relation, or a release decision, the A.10 result names the disputed claim, evidence carrier, affected use or harm, available challenge, review, redress, communication, source, publication, register, access, or contact relation, allowed evidence or argument, possible disposition change, outcome route, reopen trigger, and safe interim disposition. Source exposure remains independent of who may later perform review or repair Work. Name a responsibility, allocation, commitment, permission, or authority relation—or its exact missing governor—only when assigning that future Work; its absence does not close the challenge.

Positive repaired evidence-use statement. When the source account is complete, write the smallest bounded statement: named relied-on claim; carrier and source; direct provenance and citation relations; ordinary bounded use; and RelianceDisposition. Include currentness, a locally plausible unsupported use, and a stop or reopen condition when each changes that reliance decision. Add producing or interpreting U.Work, each actual performer’s A.13 core, independent A.15.1 admission, Method, actual bindings, and later Work only when those facts are current. Add F.6 afterward only when the receiving account needs precise assignment-bound attribution. A claimed Work-to-value link needs an exact A.6.1 application binding, one local A.15.PROD claim, or a direct subject predicate under its own pattern. Add authority or responsibility only when an exact relation is independently required by the use. A short Work statement may omit an unused assignment identifier only when the complete A.13 core, including its obtaining assignment, and every consumed relation remain recoverable; an assignment is never the authority or responsibility result.

What this does not authorize: A.10 does not approve, authorize, pass a gate, release, create permission or commitment, establish a local system-role-kind classification, establish a U.SystemRoleAssignment occurrence or state, establish a relation among system-role kinds, establish performed Work, establish a domain result, assert a representation correspondence, or raise assurance. It supplies source recovery, provenance, and bounded reliance for the exact neighboring objects named by value.

A.10:4.6b - Local evidence-use classifier and RelianceDisposition for source-bearing carrier or display reliance

Use this subsection when a visible carrier, publication face, selected source U.Episteme ref, exact EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence ref when availability is material, source relation ref, or display is being relied on for a named claim or act. First recover the claim kind, the pattern or source rule that defines or tests the claim, the source/provenance path, and the bounded use. Broad words such as source, metric, confidence, conformant, safe, ready, certified, approval, or permission are recovery prompts, not relation names.

This is a local reliance-use classifier, not a Core evidence-kind ontology. Use only the row that decides the attempted use. The path represents exact direct relations and the RelianceDisposition records one bounded A.10 judgment; neither becomes a general evidence or authority relation. Affordability: ordinary orientation or source-finding can stop here; bounded reliance states one evidence use and the currentness window, unsupported-use boundary, and stop or reopen condition that apply to it. If a direct domain rule requires assurance, state the exact assurance claim and then use B.3. Plain wording remains ordinary unless it changes one of the named source, evidence, gate, assurance, Work, decision, or control claims.

Cheap stop: if the bounded claim, carrier, evidence-provenance path, and bounded evidence use are recoverable, with the currentness, unsupported-use boundary, and stop or reopen condition applicable to that use, and there is no actual assurance claim, gate relation, Work relation, control-bearing relation, or release relation, stay in A.10. Do not open B.3, A.21, B.2.5, or a broad evidence pack merely because the carrier or display looks official, quantitative, generated, credentialed, or safety-related.

Common wrong first classification: a visible carrier, selected source U.Episteme ref, publication-form or carrier ref, exact EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence ref, source relation ref, or display is approval, permission, safety, or readiness. First honest entry: recover the A.10 evidence-provenance path for one bounded claim or use; approval, permission, safety, readiness, gate passage, and work authority must be established separately under the pattern that defines or tests each claim.

Plain disposition palette: RelianceDisposition=pass means proceed only inside the bounded evidence use; degrade means use only a narrower or reversible version; abstain means do not decide yet; reopen means a changed or contested evidence relation defeated the previous classification; evidence-needed names missing evidence at the decision point; assurance-needed says a separately stated assurance claim is required before this attempted use can proceed; blocked-current-use blocks the attempt until its evidence-provenance path or source relation changes.

For A.10 use, RelianceDisposition is a local disposition over the evidence-provenance path and the bounded reliance use. Outside a table column already headed RelianceDisposition, write the qualified form RelianceDisposition=... and bind it to the named bounded evidence use, with currentness and window, an unsupported-use boundary, and a reopen or stop condition when applicable; it is not CV.Status, GateDecisionResult, selector result, or ProblemCard@Context state.

Observed-effect or consequence evidence supports what happened or is credibly recorded. If the claim says that the source caused, prevented, would have changed, or causally contributed to the effect, use C.28 for that causal question while retaining its A.10 evidence path and any separately required Work or assurance relation. A normative responsibility or allocation claim uses its own direct rule; the phrase ‘responsible for’ must be resolved from the source claim before selecting either branch.

If a proxy marker, benchmark, confidence value, dashboard metric, or score becomes the primary driver for action, release, resource allocation, people status, team status, or P2W priority, check whether the claim being made also raises an E.13 proxy-to-objective question. Do not open E.13 for every metric; open it only when the proxy is being used as the target or decision driver.

Use C.26.1 when publication, observation, or another interaction changes the represented state while its output is being used as if it were a passive read, export, comparison, or decision input. First identify what the interaction changed and which use of the output must change. This is the probe-coupled question for a dashboard, warning, label, or public status display; ordinary influence without the false passive-read use does not activate it.

Minimum contest relation with possible redress: a contest relation exists when the affected party can identify the disputed claim or source, affected use or harm, an available challenge, review, redress, communication, source, publication, register, access, or contact relation, evidence or argument allowed in challenge, possible disposition change, outcome route, and reopen trigger. A system-role label, assignment, feedback channel, complaint form, or appeal label without those recoverable values is not enough to change the disposition. Responsibility for future review Work is a separate claim.

Affected-party contestable minimum: even when raw evidence stays restricted, the contesting party must be able to see enough of the claim, source class, disposition, affected use, available challenge or contact route, and allowed challenge evidence to challenge the result. Privacy, security, or privilege can narrow disclosure; they cannot erase the challengeable minimum while still claiming contest or redress.

False-negative reliance guard: a blocked, abstained, or evidence-needed use is not final if challenge evidence, missing affected-party evidence, changed source relation, changed selected source U.Episteme edition, changed EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence when availability is material, changed publication form, changed evidence carrier, changed representation, or redress can materially change the disposition. If refusal is based on missing evidence, name the missing evidence kind and decision point rather than closing the dispute by vagueness.

Sensitive evidence boundary: use scoped, hashed, redacted, or access-controlled evidence refs when raw carriers would expose personal data, secrets, tokens, privileged logs, tenant identifiers, incident details, security-sensitive traces, or unnecessary identities. A redacted path must still preserve enough recoverability for the relied-on claim, disposition, and contest relation.

Worked source-overread slices:

A.10:4.6c - Route a Changed Claim Across Several Actual Receiving Uses

Use A.10.1 when a later or replacement source may materially change a claim and the receiving uses must still be found across a bounded frame or closed across several actual uses. A.10 continues to govern each exact one-use source-to-use account, direct-use relation, and RelianceDisposition. Applying A.10.1 bounds the receiving-use search frame, states source-outward and receiver-oriented coverage and gaps, classifies found candidates as depends, mentions only, or unresolved, and prepares only action-changing depends branches for application of their direct subject-pattern guidance.

If one already-known bounded reliance use is the whole question, apply A.10 and the direct subject guidance. A citation, carrier, declared edge, or graph-reachable node does not become affected merely because the source changed. The completed A.10.1 account cites each independently obtained subject result afterward; it neither replaces that result nor changes A.10’s disposition set.

A.10:4.7 - Causal support in evidence-provenance paths

An A.10 path used for a causal claim cites the exact C.28 components it actually carries; it does not compress them into one alternative-valued “support basis” or copy C.28’s field list.

causalSupportComponentRefs?: CausalSupportComponentRefs
causalUseSupportResultRef?: CausalUseSupportResultRef

CausalSupportComponentRefs remains defined only by C.28. A.10’s ordinary evidence-provenance path still identifies the exact source, carrier, Work or data, provenance relations, and bounded use required by this pattern. Inside the C.28 contract, cite only the components the causal claim actually relies on. When C.28 admits another specialist component, A.10 can cite it through that contract without defining a second schema.

Examples:

• an observational cohort path cites the observation and measurement Work plus observationalOrNaturalBehaviorData; an intervention-effect statement still needs a C.28 identification or design result;
• a randomized estimate path cites assignment and Work evidence, its identification or design result, estimate, uncertainty, and limits;
• a prospective counterfactual-sampling path may cite the realizability result, its decision Method, the sampling construction or obstruction required by its status, and any unresolved question; counterfactual-quantity bounds use a separate identification result, and the prospective path claims no performed sampling or data;
• a performed counterfactual-sampling path cites independently admitted dated sampling Work and the resulting sample or data; add precise assignment-bound attribution only when the receiving support claim uses it. Only the complete Work/data path may support realizedCounterfactualSamplingData;
• a simulation path cites model output, assumptions, validation, and bounded model use; it does not become realized or interventional evidence by relabeling;
• a target-trial emulation path cites its TargetTrialMappingResult, including the observational source, protocol-to-data mappings, gaps, residual-confounding assessment, and sensitivity mappings; reporting completeness alone establishes neither identification nor low bias;
• an off-policy or causal-RL path cites its exact OffPolicyCausalEvaluationResult with the question, behaviour and evaluation policies, overlap check, supported and unsupported use, and reopen condition. It also cites optional details about history or horizon, confounding, changed endpoints or transport, the estimator, and uncertainty only when they change what the path supports, where that support came from, whether it is current, its bounded use, or when it reopens;
• a causal-representation path cites its exact CausalVariableRepresentationRecord with the question, source representation, selection or abstraction Method, representation assumptions, intervention-validity result, supported and unsupported use, and reopen condition. It also cites optional invariance, fidelity, query-preservation, uncertainty, or shift-limit results only when they change what the path supports, where that support came from, whether it is current, its bounded use, or when it reopens;
• a transport path cites every changed endpoint, assumptions, overlap evidence, formula or comparator, uncertainty or unresolved assumptions, and bounded use carried by its transportability result; and
• an observationally identified estimate cites both the evidence path and separate identification and estimate results.

What changes in practice: the path exposes where every relied-on component came from and may cite the C.28 support-result episteme. A.10 creates none of the C.28 components, the causal verdict, or downstream authority by carrying their refs.