A.2.4:4 - Solution
Do not create or use source spelling U.EvidenceRole as a durable FPF kind. Do not place an episteme in U.SystemRoleAssignment merely because it is used as evidence, source, standard, requirement, definition, explanation, publication, status bearer, or assurance input.
Use direct relation patterns instead:
| Current claim | Use |
|---|---|
| one episteme is used as evidence for one claim, effect, or bounded reliance use | A.10, with the A.2.4 evidence-use SlotKinds below |
| evidence is used by an actual named assurance claim | B.3, after A.10 source/provenance recovery and bounded-reliance classification; A.2.4 supplies only the first-use classification |
| the episteme itself is being identified, versioned, or distinguished from publication faces and publication carriers | C.2.1 |
| the use is causal, counterfactual, intervention-facing, or simulation-only | C.28, with the A.10 descriptive source/provenance path and the A.2.4 first-use classification as inputs |
| the source says “status”, “approved”, “current”, “valid”, “stale”, “ready”, or another status-like value | F.10 or the direct status, gate, permission, safety, or release pattern; A.10 for bounded reliance and B.3 for an actual named assurance claim |
| the source is a publication face, view, description, source citation, standard, requirement, explanation, or specification-use case | E.17, E.17.0, E.17.2, E.17.EFP, E.10.D2, or the direct source-use pattern |
| an admitted system is classified under an exact local system-role kind, holds an obtaining assignment, and performs or prepares Work | A.2, A.2.1, A.15, A.15.1, or A.15.2 |
A.2.4:4.0 - First-use split
An A.2.4 assertion answers only: which episteme is classified for which evidence-use or status-use, under which effective source scheme when interpretation matters, with which ClaimScope, polarity or status value, and window. When source production, evaluation, a local result, result episteme, provenance, currentness, receiving work, reliance, or assurance matters, the assertion names the direct object and the pattern passage that defines or constrains its claim; it does not re-express them as slots of a generic evidence result.
A.2.4:4.1 - Evidence-Use Relation Slots
An evidence-use relation obtains around an episteme and a claim or effect.
| SlotKind | ValueKind | Identity and currentness discipline |
|---|---|---|
EvidenceEpistemeSlot | exact U.Episteme classified for evidence use | Identity of the classified episteme. |
EvidenceTargetClaimSlot | claim or theory statement | Identity slot whenever the relation is claim-bound; a missing value blocks claim-bound evidence use. |
EvidenceClaimGroundingHolonSlot | exact U.Holon that participates in an obtaining C.2.1 EpistemeEmpiricalGroundingRelation covering the target claim | Identity or currentness-required when changing the grounding holon changes the evidence relation or the claim being evidenced. |
EvidenceClaimScopeSlot | claim-scope value governed by B.3, A.10, C.28, or a direct evidence pattern | Identity qualifier when changing scope changes the relation; currentness-required when scope changes admissible use. |
EvidencePolaritySlot | evidential polarity value such as supports, refutes, constrains, or neutral when that value set is current | Identity qualifier when changing polarity changes which evidence-use relation is asserted. |
EvidenceRelevanceWindowSlot | temporal relevance window, theory-version fence, freshness policy, or decay policy | Identity or currentness-required when time, version, or freshness changes the evidence use; consideration slot for formal uses where the theory-version fence already carries the boundary. |
EvidenceAssuranceUseSlot | the named bounded reliance or assurance-facing use | Records the intended receiving use only; A.10 is the pattern for the local disposition and B.3 is the pattern for any assurance result. |
EvidenceWeightModelSlot | weight, confidence, reliability, likelihood, or scoring model reference | Consideration slot; currentness-required when weighted evidence is claimed. |
EvidenceProvenanceConstraintSlot | refs to the exact A.10/G.6 source and provenance account | Currentness-required when provenance or a rival explanation decides admissible use. |
These SlotKinds are evidence-use relation positions.
A.2.4:4.2 - Status-Use Relation Slots
A status-use relation is a relation around a bearer, status value, scope, window, source, and use.
| SlotKind | ValueKind | Use |
|---|---|---|
StatusBearerSlot | episteme, claim, method description, publication, system-role-assignment occurrence, work occurrence, clause, gate record, or another governed bearer admitted by the direct pattern | The value whose status is being asserted or read. |
StatusTargetSlot | claim, method, episteme, publication, exact domain result or result episteme, clause, bearer, or another governed status target | Required when the status is not simply about the bearer itself; the direct status or result pattern defines it. |
StatusScopeSlot | claim scope, admission scope, requirement scope, or use scope | Currentness-required when scope changes the status assertion. |
StatusValueSlot | status value governed by F.10 or a direct pattern | Required for a status assertion. |
StatusWindowSlot | temporal validity window, freshness policy, or source/status window | Required for time-sensitive use; G.11 is the pattern for an edition-currentness result when currentness is being judged. |
StatusUseSlot | gate, assurance, admission, source-currentness, work-plan readiness, or another exact receiving use | Identifies the intended use; its receiving work, direct relation, and result remain with their governors. |
StatusProvenanceConstraintSlot | source order, authority source, publication, proof, verification, register, or provenance constraint | Currentness-required when provenance decides status use. |
These names are repair vocabulary for status-use relations. Durable status families remain governed by F.10 or a direct status pattern.
A.2.4:4.3 - Minimal Evidence-Use Statement
Write only fields that decide this first use:
Episteme evidence-use statement:
EvidenceEpisteme:
EffectiveReferenceScheme: # when interpretation changes the use
EvidenceTargetClaim:
ClaimScopeAndPolarity:
RelevanceWindow:
DirectClaimOrResultGovernor:
ProducingOrEvaluatingWorkRef: # when current
DomainLocalResultAndEpistemeRef: # when current
ProvenancePathRef: # A.10/G.6 when current
CurrentnessRef: # G.11 when current
ReceivingWorkAndUseRelationRef: # when actual use is claimed
RelianceDispositionRef: # A.10 when reliance is judged
UnsupportedOverread: # only when grounded and consequential under F.19:4
A.2.4:4.4 - Minimal Status-Use Statement
Episteme status-use statement:
StatusBearer:
StatusTarget:
StatusScope:
StatusValue:
StatusWindow:
DirectStatusGovernor:
SourceAndProvenanceRef:
CurrentnessRef: # G.11 when current
ReceivingWorkAndUseRelationRef: # when actual use is claimed
RelianceDispositionRef: # A.10 when reliance is judged
UnsupportedOverread: # only when grounded and consequential under F.19:4
A.2.4 does not fill a missing direct governor with a generic status, evidence, work-result, or evaluation-result relation.
A.2.4:4.5 - Formal, empirical, causal, and status first uses
Source labels such as AxiomaticProofRole, ObservationEvidenceRole, MeasurementEvidenceRole, ModelFitEvidenceRole, CalibrationEvidenceRole, and BenchmarkEvidenceRole are wording triggers. Recover the exact first-use classification or relation; the labels are neither local system-role kinds nor result kinds by spelling.
Formal line. Classify the exact proof, derivation, counterexample, theory note, or proof-result episteme against the named theorem and theory-version fence. The formal pattern contains the defining content for entailment, refutation, malformed-proof, timeout, or checker-failure results; C.2.1 is the pattern for the episteme that states the result. When proof-checking is asserted as dated U.Work, use A.13 to identify the actual performer and A.15.1 to admit the occurrence independently. If the proof-checking account must also identify the assignment under which the Work was performed, check that relation separately through F.6. Keep the Method and bindings separate. A.2.4 states only how the episteme is used.
Empirical and measurement line. Classify the exact dataset, observation episteme, C.16 measurement-result episteme, replication result, calibration result, benchmark result, or model-fit result episteme against one named claim. For any producing or evaluating Work, use A.13 to identify the actual performer and A.15.1 to admit the dated occurrence independently. If that account must also identify the assignment under which the Work was performed, check it separately through F.6. Keep direct relations or A.6.1 bindings separate. Each local result remains with C.16 or its exact domain governor; A.10/G.6 retain provenance; G.11 retains currentness.
Causal line. C.28 is the pattern for the causal-use question, estimand, separate evidence/identification/estimate/sampling/simulation components, realizability, support result, supported use, and unsupported use. A.2.4 may classify the exact C.2.1 episteme used at first contact; evidence wording cannot turn simulator output into interventional or realized-counterfactual evidence.
Status line. A visible status carrier is classified separately from the governed status assertion. F.10 or the exact status pattern contains the defining content for the status value, G.11 is the pattern for edition currentness, and a gate, permission, commitment, system-role-kind, assignment, Work, assurance, or decision pattern contains the defining content for its own result. Display presence establishes none of them.
A.2.4:4.6 - Work, result, provenance, and receiving-use boundary
Keep these objects separately recoverable whenever they are current:
- the classified episteme and the exact claim or status for which it is used;
- each actual performer identified through A.13; the dated source-producing or evaluating Work independently admitted through A.15.1; a separate F.6 check when the result must also identify the assignment under which that Work was performed; and separate Method, resources, and actual direct/A.6.1 bindings;
- the domain-local result and its direct governor;
- the distinct C.2.1 episteme that states that result;
- the A.10/G.6 source and provenance path;
- the G.11 currentness result when currentness affects use;
- the receiving dated work and exact premise, reference, decision-use, operation-argument, or other direct use relation; and
- the local A.10
RelianceDisposition.
Use B.3 only when an actual named assurance claim is being made. If a direct domain rule requires one for the intended use, state that claim and its required basis first.
Use A.2.4 only to classify evidence use or status use around the episteme.
When episteme inception through work matters, A.15.PROD supplies the local entity-identity inception claim.
A.2.4:4.7 - Shortcut cost and reopen condition
A.2.4 is the inexpensive first-use classifier. It may identify the episteme, target claim or status, effective source scheme when material, ClaimScope, polarity or value, window, intended use, applicable definition or constraint, and any unsupported overread grounded under F.19:4. It does not decide the source work, local result, provenance, currentness, assurance, causal support, gate passage, permission, commitment, publication interpretation, or receiving action.
Open only the exact subject question whose predicate decides the use: A.13 for the actual performer; A.15.1 for independent Work admission; F.6 when the result must also identify the assignment under which that Work was performed; A.6.1 for actual bindings; the domain result predicate plus C.2.1 for result content; A.10/G.6 for provenance and bounded reliance; G.11 for currentness; B.3 for assurance; C.28 for causal use; F.10 for a status family; or E.17 for publication. Reopen the A.2.4 classification when the episteme, target claim/status, scope, polarity/value, window, or intended use changes.