A.15.6:4.4 - Do not force the three readings into one view family
Project, process, and case wording is only a cue to inspect the claim. Under C.2.1, each description is identified through its actual claim content, the EntityOfConcern recoverable from that content, and the effective reference scheme; a management topic does not assign that EntityOfConcern.
| Description wording | Recover the direct EntityOfConcern from what the claim actually says |
|---|---|
| project cost, completion, or result | Select the composite project U.Work only when cost, completion, or another predicate is actually asserted of that Work. If the claim is about a measure, transformation, produced entity, value, condition, verdict, decision, relation occurrence, or result episteme, select that named subject instead. |
| process repeatability, variation, throughput, or improvement | Select U.Method only when the claim concerns the reusable way; select an A.22 U.Structure or TransformationFlowStructure only when it concerns that admitted organization. Otherwise select the measure, evaluation result, obtaining relation, relation-bearing claim, or admitted collection-as-whole of occurrences actually asserted. |
| case condition, trajectory, closure, or next downstream use | Select the subject or claim named by the closure question: a continuing referent and its conditions, an episteme edition thread, characteristic bearer or assignment, measurement or result episteme, relation occurrence, Work, decision, or another directly identified subject. Name the downstream receiving use but keep it outside the closed case. |
One description keeps one truthful EntityOfConcern. When independent claims have different direct subjects, keep separate epistemes rather than inventing a union concern. An E.17.0 viewpoint episteme states the concern and conformance rules for a description; it does not turn different direct subjects into views of one entity. When accounts with different EntityOfConcern values must be related, keep each episteme and its own viewpoint-conformance judgment explicit, then state the correspondence relations required by the Work that uses those accounts; source-event proximity creates neither conformance nor a new multi-view family.
If the description needs empirical grounding, identify the admitted grounding holon and the EpistemeEmpiricalGroundingRelation defined by C.2.1. GroundingHolonSlot belongs to that relation’s RelationSignature; it is not a slot of the description episteme. Project Work, U.Method, a selected method-side U.Structure, TransformationFlowStructure, transformation, and affected referent do not acquire episteme or grounding-relation slots from the account.
For process and case descriptions, readability, simulation support, and ease of use are properties of the representation in a stated use. They can change which representation a team chooses, but they do not identify the described subject, establish claim truth, close a case, or prove that Work occurred.