| A claim-bearing episteme expressed through a recipe, code artifact, or diagram and substantively about one admitted exact method | U.MethodDescription | Does the same episteme meet A.3.2’s exact membership threshold? Otherwise retain the claim-bearing episteme and any representation, publication, or formal-substrate object independently identified by its own pattern; do not call the episteme a MethodDescription. |
| The semantic “way of doing” | U.Method | Same method identity across notations? |
| The assignment (which admitted System is assigned under which local system-role kind in this case) | one obtaining occurrence of one directly declared species under U.SystemRoleAssignment | Can this assignment occurrence change without changing the System or its declared species? |
| The ability (“can do within bounds”) | Qualified holder ability (A.2.2) | Would remain even if not assigned? |
| The dated occurrence with logs and resource-use evidence | One Work individual admitted under U.Work | Did the exact action happen during the stated extent, with every actual performer’s A.13 core, at least one Method actually followed, and at least one declared containing-system relation under an exact boundary? If precise assignment-bound attribution is also claimed, does a separate F.6 relation obtain for the already admitted Work? Are any claimed binding, work-to-referent, or resource-use facts independently obtaining? |
| The actual state change associated with this occurrence | U.Transformation plus a named domain predicate, or a C.2.1 local compound claim under A.6.RCD disposition 2 | Is the change independently grounded under A.3.4? Does the direct predicate obtain for exact W and T, or does the local claim expose its constructor, governed bases, participants, and case facts? If neither route is present, retain both objects and return missing-governor[work-to-change]. |