A.2.7:4 - Solution

Start with the one relation family needed by the receiving use. Use exact local system-role kinds as its participants and put the rule, applicability, and only meaning-changing semantic-basis editions in its by-value predicate. Current assignments, assignment-state relations, capability, evidence, and the receiving window remain inputs to the later check.

Build a structure only when several exact relation occurrences must be selected together:

SystemRoleKindRelationStructure : U.Structure
  systemRoleKindSubstrate:
    exact finite set of independently identified context-local system-role kinds, by value
  selectedSystemRoleKindRelationOccurrenceRefs:
    finite set of references to exact obtaining relation occurrences
  appliedConstraintClaimRefs:
    exact constraint claims applied in this selection; an empty set is stated explicitly
  namedSelectionUseFrame:
    question:
    admissibleAction:
    stopOrNonAdmissibleOverread:
      exact stop or return condition; also named stopOrReturnCondition
  groundedNonAdmissibleOverread?:
    optional explanation outside the identity basis

The structure specializes A.22’s four-part identity: the exact system-role-kind constituents, the exact selected obtaining relation occurrences, the exact constraint claims applied, and one named selection-use frame stating the question, admissible action, and stop or return condition. stopOrReturnCondition and stopOrNonAdmissibleOverread name that same condition, not two independently filled values. A groundedNonAdmissibleOverread? is optional explanatory material under F.19:4’s plausible-reader test and is not an identity discriminator. A changed rendering, identifier, selecting Work, publication, table, or graph changes no structure while all four values remain unchanged. Replacing a constituent, selected relation occurrence, applied constraint, or use frame identifies another structure. Without a required constraint or named frame, the material is still an arrangement or description rather than an admitted SystemRoleKindRelationStructure.

A.2.7:4.1 - Direct Relation and Declaration Discipline

Substitution, incompatibility, bundle, and residual qualification are four families of direct relations under U.Relation. This pattern gives their different laws. Each context declares its exact direct species with exact local ValueKinds in its RelationSignature; A.2.7 does not introduce a permissive root signature or four additional universal Tech kinds over every possible system-role kind.

Apply the relation-object order from A.6.REL:

1. recover the exact participant kinds and by-value predicate;
2. establish from current facts or accepted constituting history whether the predicate obtains;
3. individuate one occurrence only when a receiving use needs occurrence identity;
4. assign a stable reference only when another episteme needs it; and
5. keep assertion, evidence, reliance, and representation separate from the occurrence.

The three binary families declare individual system-role-kind slots. The bundle declares the order-insensitive finite-set slot in §4.5. Every species also declares a by-value predicate slot. Each individual kind slot has an exact context-local ValueKind; the bundle’s set ValueKind specifies the exact local kind domain of its members. A system-role-taxonomy episteme, effective reference scheme, KindSignature, Bridge, or selected model-use structure is not another generic participant. Include its exact edition in predicate identity only when the rule depends on that edition.

Establish predicate truth under the context-local rule. If a specialized direct relation obtains only through an accepted appointment, policy decision, installation, or other constituting act, the context-local predicate must name that act and its acceptance condition.

Logical form supplies argument order, set semantics, and relation laws. Use the direct rules to establish participant kinds and predicate truth, and to recover occurrence identity when the receiving use needs it. Use the relevant patterns when the claim also concerns a Method, Work, transformation, agency, constructive assembly, or holon admission.

If current facts concern one actual bounded change, make that change a separate subject and use A.3.4 to recover one U.Transformation at the resolution and boundary needed by the use. Name its affected entity, boundary, precondition, postcondition, and obtaining relations. Keep it distinct from the relation among system-role kinds, an assertion about that relation, and the Work that checks it. U.Transformation by itself supplies neither a transformation-composition predicate nor holonhood.

A.2.7:4.2 - Admission Substitution

Use the admission-substitution family when one assignment may satisfy a receiving condition written for another system-role kind. The relation is directional.

For an exact context-local species, declare:

<exact context-local admission-substitution relation species> : U.Relation
RelationSignature:
  CandidateSystemRoleKindSlot: exact candidate-kind domain, ByValue
  RequiredSystemRoleKindSlot: exact required-kind domain, ByValue
  AdmissionSubstitutionPredicateSlot:
    exact context-local admission-substitution predicate kind, ByValue

One predicate value is identified by the ordered candidate and required system-role kinds, the exact receiving-use rule, applicability, and only the semantic-basis editions that change that rule. Reversing the two kinds requires another predicate evaluation. A job-grade order, common word stem, or U.SubkindOf relation may be evidence or another premise; none is the substitution relation by itself.

Current assignments and any required A.2.5 state occurrences are inputs to the receiving check. They are not participants of the relation among kinds. Establish classification, assignment, capability, authorization, gate outcomes, and Work under their direct patterns as the receiving use requires them.

A.2.7:4.3 - Incompatibility

Use the incompatibility family when assignments to two system-role kinds cannot be jointly admitted under one exact rule.

For an exact context-local species, declare:

<exact context-local incompatibility relation species> : U.Relation
RelationSignature:
  IncompatibleSystemRoleKindSlot[1]: exact local kind domain, ByValue
  IncompatibleSystemRoleKindSlot[2]: exact local kind domain, ByValue
  IncompatibilityPredicateSlot:
    exact context-local incompatibility-predicate kind, ByValue

For the actual-Work species, the predicate is identified by the unordered pair of kinds, the exact same-holder or different-holder rule, Work identity condition, temporal-overlap test, applicability, and only meaning-changing semantic-basis editions. The relation obeys the symmetry law:

incompatible(k1, k2, p) = incompatible(k2, k1, p)

The exact assignments later evaluated are receiving inputs. A conflicting allocation is a case satisfying the incompatibility rule; it is not what creates the kind relation. A system applies the receiving Method and records the resulting admit, reject, defer, or unresolved outcome under the pattern for that decision.

Prospective incompatibility species. A local policy may separately declare a direct incompatibility species for allocation to a bounded proposed action before performance. Keep the same unordered kind-pair signature and symmetry law. Its by-value predicate must declare the actual same-holder/different-holder rule, proposed-action identity condition, temporal test over the intended allocation windows, applicability and only meaning-changing semantic-basis editions. This species does not replace the actual-Work condition with an arbitrary entity slot. Use an existing WorkPlan/action locator when available; otherwise the local action rule must identify what is proposed.

For a release-action species, identify the artifact edition, target environment, promotion operation and bounded intended window, and define how a reschedule continues or replaces that action. Repeated request forms for the same action select the same subject. If a continuation rule preserves an action across a changed window, the changed window still reopens any permission whose applicability depends on it. Proposed actions, requests, plans and gate results are not future Work individuals.

The kind relation can obtain under its constituting policy before any prohibited allocation occurs. Actual assignments, their holders, the exact proposed action and intended allocation windows are receiving-test inputs. A known prohibited same-holder/action/overlap case supports rejection; missing required facts leave that receiving decision unresolved or deferred under A.21. Any independent authority and other gate conditions remain separate. Once performance occurs, identify its Work under A.15.1 and match it to prior permission through the policy’s actual action-match rule. The actual-Work species and §4.6 continuity law remain unchanged.

A.2.7:4.4 - Monotonic Kind Order and Residual Qualification

When one exact system-role kind appears to narrow another, test C.3.1 U.SubkindOf first. Use that relation only when the paired classification judgments satisfy monotonicity under the exact aligned editions and effective-reference-scheme edition required by C.3.1:

for every candidate x in the defined comparison domain:
  judgment(x, NarrowerSystemRoleKind) = true
  implies judgment(x, BroaderSystemRoleKind) = true

The proposed U.SubkindOf edge is never a premise for either membership judgment. Direct feature criteria must establish both judgments independently. A known narrower true with broader false refutes the relation. An unavailable broader dependency yields unknown and leaves the order unresolved.

When the restriction is useful but non-monotonic, use a separate residual relation rather than weakening U.SubkindOf:

<exact context-local residual qualification relation species> : U.Relation
RelationSignature:
  QualifiedSystemRoleKindSlot: exact local qualified-kind domain, ByValue
  ReferenceSystemRoleKindSlot: exact local reference-kind domain, ByValue
  ResidualQualificationPredicateSlot:
    exact context-local residual-qualification-predicate kind, ByValue

The residual predicate names the exact restriction, applicability, orientation, and only meaning-changing semantic-basis editions. A receiving Method needing substitution must establish that separate directional relation.

A.2.7:4.5 - Joint-Admission Bundle

Use the bundle family when a receiving use needs assignments to a finite set of system-role kinds together and the holder-allocation rule matters.

For an exact context-local species, declare:

<exact context-local bundle relation species> : U.Relation
RelationSignature:
  BundledSystemRoleKindSetSlot:
    exact order-insensitive finite set of local system-role kinds, ByValue
  JointAdmissionPredicateSlot:
    exact context-local joint-admission-predicate kind, ByValue

The predicate is identified by the exact order-insensitive set, joint-admission and holder-allocation rule, applicability, and only meaning-changing semantic-basis editions. The predicate states which assignments may have the same holder, which require distinct holders, and how the receiving window is tested.

Exact current assignments and the receiving window remain inputs to the later check. The bundle specifies a joint condition over distinct system-role kinds. Use the applicable direct pattern when assignment, team, or Work identity is needed. A list of labels without a joint-admission and allocation rule is not a bundle relation.

A.2.7:4.6 - Occurrence Identity and Continuity

For substitution and residual qualification, one occurrence begins when fixed ordered kinds satisfy one fixed predicate. For incompatibility, the participant identity is the unordered pair. For a bundle, it is the order-insensitive finite set. In every case, the occurrence continues through the maximal uninterrupted interval during which the fixed predicate obtains for those fixed participants.

A compatible declaration, scheme, KindSignature, Bridge, or other semantic-basis edition preserves the predicate only through an explicit continuity decision showing that the rule, orientation or set semantics, applicability, system-role-kind identities, and meaning-bearing semantic basis remain unchanged. Otherwise use another predicate and establish whether it obtains for those participants. A new relation occurrence begins only when it does. Equal displayed labels establish no continuity.

An affirmative assertion or occurrence description may state the known systemRoleKindRelationExtent only after current facts or accepted constituting history satisfy the predicate and the identity rule recovers the occurrence. Closing an open extent refines the same occurrence when obtaining was uninterrupted. A demonstrated predicate-false gap ends it; later truth begins another. Missing evidence leaves reliance unresolved and does not demonstrate a truth gap.

systemRoleKindRelationExtent is content of an affirmative assertion or occurrence description, not a temporal SlotSpec. A target declaredSystemRoleKindRelationEvaluationWindow belongs to the receiving assertion or check and is not part of the direct relation signature or occurrence identity.

For U.SubkindOf, use C.3.1’s own obtaining and identity law, including its exact effective-reference-scheme edition. Do not replace it with the generic A.2.7 interval rule.

SystemRoleKindRelationStructure identity follows all four A.22 discriminators: exact kind constituents, exact selected relation occurrences, exact applied constraint claims, and the named selection-use frame. A scheme change that changes a constituent, selected relation, applied constraint, or use frame changes the structure; selecting System, Method, Work, result episteme, and publication remain outside identity.

A.2.7:4.7 - Assertion and Receiving Check

A relied-on kind-relation claim is a C.2.1 assertion episteme, not the relation occurrence. Keep these moves in order:

1. name the exact direct relation family or U.SubkindOf, participant kinds, predicate, and applicability;
2. establish whether current facts or accepted constituting history satisfy that predicate;
3. when the receiver needs occurrence identity, apply the direct identity rule and recover the already obtaining occurrence;
4. only then let an affirmative assertion use that occurrence as its EntityOfConcern and state its known extent; and
5. add evidence, currentness, and reliance only when the receiving use needs them.

When no positive occurrence is recovered, a negative, candidate, counterfactual, or unsupported affirmative claim normally uses the exact admitted relation kind, or another independently identified entity, as its EntityOfConcern. Its ClaimGraph carries proposed fillings, predicate, polarity or modality, and meaning-bearing semantic basis. It carries no fabricated positive occurrence reference or actual extent.

Unresolved reliance preserves the assertion’s stated polarity and leaves relation obtaining and occurrence identity unchanged. C.2.1 still identifies the assertion by its content, exact EntityOfConcern, and effective reference scheme.

Supported assertions serve as typed premises for another Method. A system performs the receiving check by the selected Method, normally as follows:

1. resolves the exact local system-role kinds and any current direct U.SystemRoleAssignment species or A.2.5 state occurrences needed by the rule;
2. tests the exact relation predicate without copying assignments or state occurrences into the kind-relation participant set;
3. individuates the relation only when the receiving use needs its identity;
4. records the appropriate assertion and its separate reliance posture;
5. evaluates capability, resource, interface, risk, evidence, currentness, assurance, or other conditions under their direct patterns; and
6. records the outcome defined for the next question’s exact decision kind.

Current facts make a world-side relation obtain. Optional individuation recovers one occurrence. An episteme asserts it. Evidence supports reliance. A system performs the check.

A.2.7:4.8 - Recover Apparent Decomposition

When ordinary wording says subrole, role part, or combined role, start from the engineering question:

This recovery introduces no system-role mereology. Recover exact kinds, relations, assignments, predicates, Methods, and Work through the direct patterns above.

A.2.7:4.9 - Representation, Model-Use, and Cross-Scheme Boundaries

A graph, table, matrix, algebra, embedding, policy file, taxonomy, or organization chart may describe a SystemRoleKindRelationStructure or support a C.29 mathematical-lens use. It is not the selected structure or any selected relation occurrence by form. State what organization the representation preserves and loses before relying on it.

Reference an independently selected BoundedModelUseStructure only when interpretation depends on that model-use organization. Keep it with the receiving assertion or use unless one direct relation predicate truly depends on its exact edition; only then does that edition enter the predicate’s semantic basis.

When a comparison, translation, or reuse crosses schemes, first recover the exact F.17 sense cells and obtaining F.9 Bridge. Then state a separate C.2.1 bounded-use assertion naming direction, correspondence rule, tolerated loss, polarity, use, and effective scheme. Ordinary reliance requires the current A.10 evidence-provenance relation and a passing disposition for that use. Use B.3 only when an actual named assurance claim is current; require its result for the same bounded assurance use. Establish any required authorization separately.

Apply the direct rule for each claim of bounded-use suitability, an A.2.7 relation, assignment, authorization, receiving-check outcome, or performed Work. A Bridge, profile, or card may provide information for that claim. A local relation that obtains keeps the participant set and identity declared here.

A.2.7:4.10 - Lightweight Path

Ordinary prose may state a readable relation and stop:

For pump pressure-test Work, an assignment to SeniorHydraulicsTechnicianSystemRole
may satisfy the condition written for HydraulicsTechnicianSystemRole.

Add an exact direct-species RelationSignature when reusable participant typing matters. Individuate an occurrence only when another claim depends on its identity. Assign a stable reference only when another episteme needs it. Build a SystemRoleKindRelationStructure only when several selected relations must be used together and all four A.22 discriminators are recoverable. Completeness is not a reason to materialize every layer.