A.15.1:4.5 - Crossing visibility for work publications

When a work publication relies on another selected method-description episteme, name that episteme and the relation the publication actually uses; do not infer an edition from a version label or later date. For a semantic crossing, name the two F.17 sense cells and test the F.9 Bridge predicate profile, then state the proposed action, direction, rule, and tolerated loss in a separate C.2.1 bounded-use claim. For a reference-scheme, claim-scope, model-use, reference-plane, unit, or publication change, cite the direct relation that the publication actually uses. State reliance through the applicable A.10 account of independently established evidence-use relations or the B.3 assurance result, and state any penalty only under its separate policy; none of these facts changes the Work occurrence’s identity.

A claim that a planned, gate-selected, or launch-labelled value was actually used requires a named direct predicate with its actual participants to obtain, or an exact A.6.1 operation-application binding to connect one identified application to that value. If the required predicate or binding rule is undefined, keep the planned designation and return missing-governor[actual-use]. If the rule exists but its positive test fails or lacks a deciding fact, keep the planned designation and return factually unsupported or missing-information, respectively. Do not back-fill a plan or infer an actual binding from shared wording. Pre-state and post-state references remain with an independently governed transformation or comparison claim; bracketing the Work interval does not bind them to the occurrence.