A.16.0:5 - Archetypal Grounding
Tell. A language-state trajectory account is not we kept refining the note. It is an optional, lineage-aware account of episteme editions and their publication history, with declared position claims, move kinds, losses, and the next applicable pattern or use.
Show (System). A service disturbance is a system-side phenomenon, not a trajectory lineage member. It grounds an alerting episteme lineage. One stabilized cue pack may first keep two routes live in one RoutedCueSet; record a fork only after distinct successor epistemes and their independently established fork links are identified.
Show (Episteme). A model-vs-observation discrepancy is a witness-lane tension, not the positioned episteme edition or its lineage. Once the discrepancy is preserved in a cue pack, one branch may express the selected edition in a typed prompt form and later formalize it; if the claims change, identify another episteme and assert continuation only when its exact relation obtains. Another branch may reopen or retire if the provisional route proves unsupported.
A.16.0:5.1 - Five identity and use cases
These are constructed distinctions. History account H1 has source episteme S0 as its exact EntityOfConcern, claims about S0’s language-state history and an effective ReferenceScheme.
| Change or receiving question | Result |
|---|---|
| H1’s unchanged claims are displayed in another arrangement or on another carrier. | H1 remains the same episteme. Recover the changed form, bearing or availability relation only when needed. |
| The author learns a new supported fact about S0’s history and changes the account’s claim content. | The resulting account H2 is another episteme. It is a continuing edition of H1 only if the C.2.1 edition relation obtains. Learning this fact did not itself change S0’s history. |
| Independently identified S1 and S2 are successors of S0, and the actual historical facts satisfy the selected lineage rule’s fork predicate; neither successor has been published. | The fork already obtains and can be described. Two different publications of S0 alone would not satisfy this case. |
| A route projection retains a conclusion but omits an assumption needed to reconstruct its applicability. | The loss note identifies that assumption and which receiving use can no longer recover it, retaining the supported content and stating the needed reopen condition. |
| Under an already defined review-responsibility rule, Ana is responsible for review case K until time t; an authorized instituting act G assigns that responsibility to Boris from t. | Cite the rule, both actual relations, their participants, review scope, time and instituting act. The history account reports this change. Language-state movement, a new form or next-use docking supplies none of those responsibility facts. |
For a question about whether S0 has a successor when the evidence is incomplete, keep S0 as the account’s subject and state that unresolved claim. For a question about an actual independently identified lineage relation R, an account may instead have R as its subject. A table showing unrelated S0 and T0 does not supply a common history-object identity.