A.2.9 — U.SpeechAct — Communicative Work and Its Intended Use

Status: Stable Type: Definitional work-ontic pattern

A.2.9:0.1 - Kind Settlement

U.SpeechAct is the admitted communicative-work kind under U.Work. One individual such as SA-Approve-4711 : U.SpeechAct is an actual temporally bounded speech-act occurrence. A SpeechActRecord : U.Episteme may state claims about that occurrence.

A.2.9:0 - Use This When

Use this pattern when one actual act of communicating matters because either:

• a named System or audience, including the producer returning later, should understand or do something because of it, and you need to judge the evidence, smallest repair, or stop; or
• a project must identify, model, audit, or rely on it as performed Work, for example as an approval, authorization, revocation, notice, declaration, or publication.

What goes wrong if missed. A response, silence, later action, or later change is treated as the meaning, achievement, or caused effect of the communication; or a document, interface, ticket, message, or log is treated as if it performed the act. Approval, wording, evidence carrier, commitment, receiving use, and performed Work then collapse into one phrase.

What this buys. A practitioner can first judge what the communication should enable and what evidence or repair the use needs. Exact communicative Work occurrences remain available for modeling, audit, and reliance without collapsing them into a claim-bearing SpeechActRecord, an utterance description, or an evidence carrier.

Typical moments:

• a report, model, message, or answer seems clear, but it is unclear who should understand or do what with it or what evidence would be enough;
• a response, later action, or later change is being used as proof that the named receiving use was achieved or that the communication caused the change;
• a release, gate, or work step depends on whether a named approval or authorization was performed;
• a publication, notice, or revocation may have an institutional effect only under an exact current policy or procedure, while the communicative act and any resulting effect retain distinct intervals;
• a commitment must cite the act that instituted it, rather than only pointing at a document;
• a message, ticket, signed record, or API call log is being mistaken for the act itself.

Primary EntityOfConcern. The EntityOfConcern is one actual act of communicating, admitted as communicative Work under U.SpeechAct. For a receiving-use question, identify that Work only far enough to say who should understand or do what and to keep the act distinct from its wording, representation, medium, response, and later effect. When exact occurrence identity, institutional force, audit, or reliance is current, follow §4.1 and SA-C0/SA-C1: recover the A.13 performer core, independently admit the Work through A.15.1, and use F.6 afterward only for a needed precise assignment-bound claim through the same obtaining assignment. Also recover the recognition-taxonomy episteme, effective reference scheme, and any applicable policy or procedure. A SpeechActRecord, MethodDescription, utterance-description episteme, channel, and file, message, ticket, or log carrier remain separate objects.

First useful move. State who should understand or do what because of the communication, including later self-use by its producer, and what evidence would be enough for the present judgement. Keep response, achievement, later action or change, causal contribution, authority, consent, permission, and admissibility separate. Repair the smallest blocker in the wording, representation, prerequisites, medium, interaction, or a future receiving use—or stop. Only when the named modeling, audit, institutional, or reliance use needs exact occurrence detail, follow the admission and conditional attribution route in §4.1 and SA-C0/SA-C1. Recover taxonomy, scheme, policy, optional channel, and any separate effect only when the use needs them. Create a SpeechActRecord only when a receiving use needs a persistent claim about the already admitted occurrence. Apply SA-C1 when a guard, gate, or claim needs exact assignment-bound attribution; otherwise the record may omit that attribution.

Not this pattern when. If the question is only what a document says, use A.7/C.2/E.17. If the question is only evidentiary support for a later claim or whether the communication caused a later effect, use A.10 or C.28 after identifying that claim. For whether an actual system or party has a duty, use A.2.8. When the Work is not an act of communicating under §4.1, use A.15.1 directly.

Type: Definitional (D) Normativity: Normative (unless explicitly marked informative) Placement: Part A → A.2 System-role kinds, assignments, and agency kernel Refines: A.2 (System-role kinds and assignments) Builds on: A.2.1 (U.SystemRoleAssignment direct species), A.2.6 (Γ_time and windows), A.7 (EntityOfConcern, Description episteme, and carrier), A.10 (SCR/RSCR carrier discipline), A.13 (precise local agency basis), A.15.1 (U.Work), and F.6 (performedUnderAssignment attribution) Purpose (one line): Admit communicative enactments under U.SpeechAct, make a named receiving use and its smallest evidence-backed repair usable before heavier occurrence detail, and provide a minimal optional SpeechActRecord while keeping the act, record, utterance description, and evidence carrier separate.

FPF already treats communicative acts as observable events used in system-role-assignment-state checklists and grounding (“presence of act: AuthorizationSpeechAct exists…”); those checks cite actual occurrences admitted under U.SpeechAct, not the kind itself. The spec’s micro-examples and conformance gates distinguish communicative Work (“performed a SpeechAct”) from operational Work (“executed Work”) while keeping both inside U.Work (cf. CC‑A15‑10 GateSplit).

A.2.9:1 — Problem frame

FPF repeatedly needs to reference “someone said/did the approving/authorizing/declaring thing”:

• System-role-assignment eligibility and enactability checklists often depend on the presence of an approval or authorization act within a freshness window.
• Governance patterns and boundary writing (A.6 stack) need provenance: “this obligation or commitment, or this separately represented granted permission, was instituted by that act”.
• Operational patterns need auditable notices (“depletion notice”, “override invoked”) whose existence and timing matter.

The same separation is needed before formal occurrence modeling. A reader may need to decide whether a report, answer, model, or message enabled one named use and what to repair. A visible response is not by itself achievement; a later action or change is not by itself evidence that the communication caused it; and the full occurrence-record apparatus should not be a prerequisite for this first bounded judgement.

Without a first-class kind for such communicative Work and a separate way to describe each occurrence, authors tend to:

• attribute agency to descriptions (“the spec approves…”, “the interface guarantees…”),
• collapse “utterance text” and “speech act event”,
• leave provenance dangling as “if modeled”,
• encode gates as prose obligations, or treat obligations as gates.

The definition below admits U.SpeechAct as an explicit Work kind and states the identity conditions for actual speech-act occurrences; their optional records remain separate from U.Commitment, utterance descriptions, and carriers.

A.2.9:2 — Problem

How can FPF represent communicative enactments so that:

1. Agency is explicit: §4.1 and SA-C0/SA-C1 require the A.13 performer core, independent A.15.1 Work admission, and F.6 afterward only for a needed precise assignment-bound claim through the same obtaining assignment.
2. The act is locatable in time: the act has an explicit Window (and thus freshness can be evaluated).
3. The act is locatable in meaning: the act satisfies a type defined by an exact recognition-taxonomy episteme under an effective reference scheme; no generic bounded-context participant or Work judgement-context field substitutes for that basis, and U.ClaimScope remains only a claim-applicability object when a receiving claim needs one.
4. The act is auditable: it has at least one declared utterance description, evidence carrier, or both when used for gate checks or governance.
5. Institutional effects are linkable: the act can institute or update commitments, system-role assignments, statuses, and other exact relations by reference only after each effect’s direct obtaining conditions hold.
6. Ambiguity is handled pragmatically: the model supports multi-function and multi-party communication without requiring full linguistic pragmatics.
7. Receiving use stays affordable: a practitioner can name who should understand or do what, judge the available evidence, and repair the smallest blocker or stop without first constructing a complete occurrence record.

A.2.9:3 — Forces

A.2.9:4 — Solution

When a receiving use is current, state who should understand or do what because of the communicative Work, including later self-use by its producer, then judge that Work against evidence relevant to the stated use. A response, silence, later action, or later change may be evidence, but none by itself defines what the utterance means, proves that the use was achieved, or shows that the Work caused the later effect. Keep the communicative Work distinct from its wording, representation, medium, interpretation, response, later action or change, and any causal claim.

Repair the smallest thing that blocks the stated use—for example, wording, representation, prerequisites, medium, interaction, or a future receiving use—or stop. Judge earlier communicative Work against the use stated for that occurrence. A revised use applies to later communication or to a separately named reevaluation; it does not turn the earlier response into achievement of the earlier declared use. Authority, consent, permission, and ethical or institutional admissibility remain separate questions.

When exact occurrence identity, governance, modeling, audit, or reliance is current, use the admitted kernel kind U.SpeechAct. For an individual SA : U.SpeechAct, §4.1 and SA-C0/SA-C1 give the admission and conditional attribution route: recover the A.13 performer core, independently admit the Work through A.15.1, and use F.6 afterward only for a needed precise assignment-bound claim through the same obtaining assignment. A separate recognition-taxonomy episteme and effective reference scheme make the act-type classification inspectable; an applicable policy or procedure defines any claimed institutional force. A SpeechActRecord may describe the occurrence and point to a MethodDescription, optional channel, utterance descriptions, or evidence carriers; none is the act or enacted Method.

A.2.9:4.1 — Normative definition

U.SpeechAct <: U.Work is a kind declaration. An actual Work individual is admitted as SA : U.SpeechAct when its primary effect is communicative: it places an utterance through an optional channel in a way classified by an exact speech-act recognition taxonomy under an effective reference scheme and, when institutional force is claimed, by a current policy, procedure, or protocol rule as potentially:

• asserting/informing,
• requesting/directing,
• promising/committing (as an instituting act),
• declaring/authorizing/revoking (status-changing acts),
• notifying (event announcement relevant for downstream work).

Per A.7 and A.15.1, the actual speech-act occurrence is a Work individual; its SpeechActRecord and utterance descriptions are epistemes, while its carriers are utterance carriers, publication carriers, or traces that allow observation and audit.

Occurrence identity specializes A.15.1. Admit a candidate as actual communicative Work from one exact communicative performance history, every actual performer’s A.13 core, an enacted Method, temporal extent, and containing-System relation; do not use an F.6 conclusion as an admission premise. Several satisfied act types classify that one Work occurrence. Identify more than one occurrence only when distinct performance history, enacted Methods, institutional actions, or another admitted discriminator establishes distinct Work. A shared utterance, carrier, assignment, or interval decides neither sameness nor difference. If a named use still admits more than one defensible segmentation, cite its continuity or segmentation rule or leave the occurrence boundary unresolved. Check any precise assignment-bound attribution through F.6 only after admission.

Whether a given act type institutes commitments, permissions, publication relations, or status changes depends on an exact current policy or procedure and on the direct obtaining conditions of the claimed effect. Absent that basis, treat SA : U.SpeechAct only as actual communicative Work.

A.2.9:4.2 — Minimal occurrence-description record (normative)

Use the following declaration schema only when a receiving use needs a persistent claim about one already admitted actual speech-act occurrence. The record fields state claims about the referenced occurrence. A source that has only a candidate observation uses the separate non-conformant episteme/stub described under SpeechActRef discipline; it supplies neither a SpeechActRef nor a SpeechActRecord.

U.SpeechAct <: U.Work

SpeechActRef ::= U.EntityRef
  // resolves to one actual Work individual admitted as SA : U.SpeechAct

SpeechActRecord <: U.Episteme

SpeechActRecord ::=
    {
      speechActOccurrenceRef: SpeechActRef,
      actualPerformerSystemRef: U.EntityRef,            // resolves to the A.13-qualified System projected as RA.HolderSystemSlot
      performedUnderAssignmentRef: optional<U.RelationRef constrained to F.6 performedUnderAssignment>, // omit when the record makes no exact assignment-bound attribution; any present reference resolves after independent Work admission to the exact relation for this act and the same obtaining A.13 assignment
      enactsMethodRef: optional<U.EntityRef>,        // resolves to the exact U.Method enacted by the actual Work
      methodDescriptionRef: optional<U.EpistemeRef>, // separate C.2.1 episteme used only when it identifies, constrains, or justifies that Method or intended Work
      unresolvedEnactsMethodClaimAddress: optional<ClaimAddress>,
      methodRelationGapProvenanceRef: optional<U.EpistemeRef>,
      reliancePosture: observationOnly | relianceReady,
      workContainmentRelationRefs: set<U.RelationRef>,       // non-empty; exact locally declared A.15.1 Work-to-System relation occurrences used by this record
      window: [start, end | open],                   // the act occurrence's extent, never an instituted effect's validity interval
      recognitionTaxonomyRef: U.EpistemeRef,         // exact speech-act recognition taxonomy
      effectiveReferenceScheme: U.ReferenceScheme,  // scheme under which actTypes and cited policy/procedure are interpreted
      policyOrProcedureRef: optional<U.EpistemeRef>, // current policy/procedure only when recognition or institutional force depends on it
      channelRef: optional<U.EntityRef>,              // optional independently governed communication channel
      utteranceSubjectRefs: optional<set<U.EntityRef>>,
      institutionalTargetRefs: optional<set<U.EntityRef>>,
      actTypes: set<SpeechActTypeRef>,                // ≥1 satisfied classifications under the named taxonomy and scheme
      addressedTo: optional<set<AddresseeRef>>,       // optional: who is addressed / audience
      utteranceDescriptionLocators: optional<set<DescriptionLocator>>, // where the utterance description is stated or recorded (A.7: Description)
      carrierRefs: optional<set<CarrierRef>>,         // evidence carriers/traces (A.7: Carrier; use A.10 when evidentiary)
      institutes: optional<InstitutedEffects>,        // references to separately obtaining objects/relations instituted or updated by this act
      notes: optional<InformativeText>                // explicitly informative
    }

DescriptionLocator ::=
  ClaimAddress | U.EpistemeRef
  // ClaimAddress here means C.2.1 ClaimAddress: exact edition plus intrinsic ClaimGraph identity; the other branch refers to the whole description episteme.

SpeechActTypeRef ::=
  RecognitionTaxonomyLocalTokenRef
  // Must be defined by recognitionTaxonomyRef and satisfied under effectiveReferenceScheme.

AddresseeRef ::=
  exactly one branch when addressee identity is required:
    addresseePartyRef?: PartyRef
    addresseeSystemRoleKindRef?: U.KindRef resolving to one exact local system-role kind
    addresseeSystemRoleAssignmentRef?: U.RelationRef constrained to U.SystemRoleAssignment

GrantedPermissionRelationRef@Context ::= U.RelationRef constrained to GrantedPermissionRelation@Context
  // resolves only to one exact obtaining grant occurrence

EpistemePublicationRelationRef ::= U.RelationRef constrained to E.24.PUB EpistemePublicationRelation
  // resolves only to one exact obtaining publication occurrence

GovernedInstitutedRelationLink ::= local link record, not a U-kind
  relationOccurrenceRef: U.RelationRef constrained to the exact declared relation kind
  relationRuleLocator: PatternID
    // locates the rule that defines and tests that relation

InstitutedEffects ::=
  {
    commitments: optional<set<U.RelationRef constrained to U.Commitment>>,
    permissions: optional<set<GrantedPermissionRelationRef@Context>>,
    systemRoleAssignments: optional<set<U.RelationRef constrained to U.SystemRoleAssignment>>,
    publicationRelations: optional<set<EpistemePublicationRelationRef>>,
    otherGovernedRelations: optional<set<GovernedInstitutedRelationLink>>
  }

Occurrence-side constraints:

• (SA‑C0) Actual Work conformance. The individual referenced by speechActOccurrenceRef MUST first satisfy independent A.15.1 admission: every actual performer has the A.13 core for the communicative action, scope, working situation, and window; the performance history is grounded; and the Work has an actual enactsMethod -> U.Method relation, temporal extent, and at least one obtaining locally declared Work-to-System containment relation. Add a characteristic profile only when a Grade, autonomy or profile result, criterion-dependent characteristic, or assurance use consumes it. A record that makes no exact assignment-bound attribution MAY omit performedUnderAssignmentRef. Whenever that field is present or the record claims exact assignment-bound attribution, it MUST resolve to a separate F.6 relation established after admission for this already admitted act through the same obtaining A.13 assignment. methodDescriptionRef, when present, cites a separate C.2.1 episteme; the description is not enacted.
• (SA‑C1) The System performs; exact attribution reuses the same assignment. The performer MUST be an admitted U.System that satisfies and is classified under one exact local agential system-role kind for this act. An observation-only or otherwise non-attribution record MAY omit performedUnderAssignmentRef and MUST NOT be used to satisfy a guard, gate, or claim that depends on exact assignment-bound attribution. If the field is present, it MUST resolve to the separately obtaining F.6 performedUnderAssignment relation for the already admitted act and the same obtaining assignment occurrence named by A.13, together with its declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species. If a guard, gate, or claim relies on exact assignment-bound attribution, the field MUST be present and that F.6 relation MUST obtain. The assignment MUST have the performer as holder, supply every other participant, cover the act, and satisfy its species predicate for the required scope, working situation, and window. Evidence supports those core facts; a characteristic profile enters only when conditionally consumed. Taxonomy and reference-scheme epistemes may interpret an assertion but are not assignment participants. Establish any authority required by the receiving use under its applicable rule.
• (SA‑C2) Act types are independently satisfied recognition classifications. The occurrence MUST instantiate at least one SpeechActTypeRef defined by the exact recognitionTaxonomyRef under the stated effectiveReferenceScheme. If a policy or procedure supplies an additional recognition condition, cite its exact current episteme and satisfy that condition separately.
• (SA‑C3) Time honesty and interval separation. The occurrence MUST have an actual temporal extent so freshness can be evaluated; the record’s window is a claim about that act extent. Every instituted commitment, grant, publication relation, status relation, or other effect keeps its own independently governed occurrence or validity interval. Coincident boundaries do not merge act and effect.
• (SA‑C3a) Policy, procedure, and channel remain neighbors. A cited policyOrProcedureRef is a separate current C.2.1 episteme; its currentness, applicability, and any edition relation must be established under their subject patterns. An optional channelRef names an independently governed communication route or participating entity.

Keep three questions separate. utteranceSubjectRefs answers what the utterance or claim is about. institutionalTargetRefs answers which object or relation the act is intended to institute or update under the cited current policy or procedure. Actual change or institutional effect is a third world-side fact and is stated only through its exact direct change/effect relation and the matching typed institutes.* reference when the record needs it. An informative notice or assertion may have a subject without any institutional target or changed entity. Shared reference values do not collapse these relation meanings.

Record- and reliance-side constraints:

• (SA‑C4) A relied-on occurrence must be observable. When a gate, checklist, commitment, or grant relies on a SpeechActRef, the SpeechActRecord SHALL identify that same occurrence and cite at least one applicable entry from utteranceDescriptionLocators or carrierRefs, or a separately governed evidence relation. Evidence-critical uses SHOULD cite at least one carrier through A.10. Record completeness alone does not prove occurrence or institutional force.
• (SA‑C5) Institutional-effect claims are typed references to world-side effects. institutes.* may reference only a separately obtaining commitment or relation occurrence through its declared RefKind. Each institutes.commitments value resolves through U.RelationRef constrained to U.Commitment and is usable only when an identified policy applies and A.2.8’s bearer, constitutive-rule, instituting-basis, and continuation conditions hold. Each institutes.permissions value resolves to one GrantedPermissionRelation@Context whose participants, policy, scheme, and validity satisfy A.2.8.PER; each institutes.systemRoleAssignments value resolves to one occurrence whose species is declared under A.2.1; and each publication value resolves to an obtaining EpistemePublicationRelation under E.24.PUB. A status claim is an episteme about an effect; keep it and its A.10 evidence relation outside institutes.*. A Bridge is added only if the receiving inference depends on translating or comparing local meanings across schemes.
• (SA‑C6) F.9 only for a real cross-locality dependency. Cite an F.9 Bridge when a receiving check, gate, provenance claim, or effect inference actually compares, substitutes, or transfers a speech-act type or policy meaning between different local taxonomies, schemes, or policies. A different consumer, organization label, repository location, or downstream use does not by itself create that dependency. The same token in two local schemes does not establish equivalence, and a Bridge does not transfer institutional force by itself.

A.2.9:4.3 — SpeechActRef discipline (normative)

A SpeechActRef resolves to one actual Work individual admitted as SA : U.SpeechAct. It never denotes the kind itself or a SpeechActRecord.

• If an A.2.8 commitment predicate or assertion cites this occurrence as its instituting basis, the referenced occurrence MUST satisfy occurrence-side SA‑C0…SA‑C3a. A gate, audit, or provenance use additionally needs the record and evidence basis in SA‑C4 and needs SA‑C6 only when its inference really crosses local taxonomies, schemes, or policies.
• A SpeechActRef MUST NOT be replaced by an EpistemeRef (“see the document”) when occurrence provenance is needed. A SpeechActRecord or utterance-description episteme may make claims about the occurrence but is not the act.
• If a source cannot yet establish A.15.1 admission for one actual occurrence, it may create a separate U.Episteme identified as a candidate observation stub. The stub is not a SpeechActRecord, supplies no SpeechActRef or speechActOccurrenceRef, and does not conform to the complete declaration schema or SA-C0. It carries a source-local candidate locator or C.2.1 ClaimAddress, known observation claims, provenance for those claims, and explicit unknowns. If the actual enactsMethod -> U.Method relation cannot yet be recovered, record that unresolved claim and its source-gap provenance in the stub; do not invent a U.MethodDescription to establish the missing Method relation. The stub supports no gate or deontic provenance and remains observation-only. After A.15.1 independently admits one exact actual occurrence, create a distinct conformant SpeechActRecord; do not promote or relabel the stub in place, though a separately governed provenance or evidence relation may cite it.

A.2.9:4.4 — Separation rules with U.Commitment, GrantedPermissionRelation@Context, and U.PromiseContent (normative)

1. Instituting an enduring deontic relation. A speech-act occurrence may be the actual instituting basis for one U.Commitment or GrantedPermissionRelation@Context only under an exact current constitutive policy or rule and the effect pattern’s satisfied direct predicate. The enduring relation is separately identified. Do not encode obligations or permissions as prose inside SpeechActRecord; cite only the exact already obtaining relation occurrences in institutes.commitments or institutes.permissions.

2. Promise content and the act of offering it. U.PromiseContent is the promised-outcome statement; a speech act may be the act of offering or issuing that promise, but the promise content lives in the promise-content object and is referenced from the resulting commitments.

3. The act and its evidence carrier. A “signed approval PDF”, ticket, message, or API log is a carrier; it may carry an utterance-description episteme or a SpeechActRecord. The speech act is the Work occurrence described or evidenced.

4. Conditions for publication and institutional effects. Default interpretation rule (normative). A conformant model/interpreter MUST NOT infer a U.Commitment, GrantedPermissionRelation@Context, publication occurrence, or subject-specific status relation solely from a Publish/Approve speech-act occurrence or its record. Publication work may establish an EpistemePublicationRelation only when E.24.PUB’s selected edition, audience, bounded use, form, carrier, and availability conditions obtain. A constitutive policy may let an act institute a subject-specific Approved, Published, or similar status relation; then cite that exact relation occurrence through the subject pattern and separately cite any C.2.1 status claim and A.10 evidence. The claim represents the status; judge whether that status obtains under the cited status rule.

A.2.9:4.5 — Multi-function and multi-party support (normative)

• Multi-function: actTypes is a set. When one actual communicative Work performs several recognizable functions, one speech-act occurrence carries all satisfied actTypes. Identify several occurrences only when the occurrence-identity rule in §4.1 finds distinct world-side grounds. Their records may share utterance or carrier references. If the named use still admits competing segmentations, cite its continuity or segmentation rule or leave the boundary unresolved. Institutional effects remain separately referenceable (SA‑C5).

• Multi-party: addressedTo is a set. Its optional members may be parties, exact local system-role kinds, or exact obtaining occurrences of directly declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species. State which branch each addressee uses. Identify the actual performer and establish any claimed authority, commitment, permission, responsibility or institutional effect under their applicable rules.

A.2.9:5 — Archetypal Grounding (Tell–Show–Show)

A.2.9:5.1 — Tell (universal rule)

When a named receiving use is current, first state who should understand or do what, what evidence would be enough, and the smallest repair or stop. Keep the act of communicating, its wording and medium, observed response, achieved use, later effect, causal contribution, and authority or permission questions distinct.

When governance or gating depends on “someone said or did X”, first identify that saying or doing as SA : U.SpeechAct through the A.13-qualified performer, grounded communicative history, Method, extent, and containment required by A.15.1. Then, if the gate relies on the exact assignment under which it was performed, establish F.6 separately through the same A.13 assignment. Add a SpeechActRecord only to state relied-on claims about the already admitted act, and keep any MethodDescription, optional channel, utterance text, and carriers separate. If the occurrence institutes an obligation, recommendation-as-duty, or prohibition, cite a separately obtaining U.Commitment; if it institutes strong permission, cite a GrantedPermissionRelation@Context. The act institutes neither effect without an applicable policy or rule and independently satisfied conditions.

Receiving-use worked slice. An engineer sends a threshold-change note to an operator. The named use is that the operator can identify the new threshold and the next safe action; the engineer should also be able to recover the reason for the change later. The operator replies “Got it” but updates the wrong parameter. That reply is evidence of a response, not achievement of the named use. The parameter update is a later action and world change; it does not by itself show that the note caused the change. Use A.10 when the evidentiary claim needs support and C.28 before claiming causal contribution.

Persistent observation-only record slice. After A.13 supplies the performer basis and A.15.1 independently admits SA-Threshold-Change-17 : U.SpeechAct, a later review needs a durable observation that the threshold note occurred but makes no claim about the exact assignment under which it was sent. SA-Threshold-Change-17-Record : SpeechActRecord states the occurrence and actual-performer references, actual Method and containment references, act window, recognition taxonomy and scheme, act type, utterance-description locator, and carrier; it sets reliancePosture = observationOnly and omits performedUnderAssignmentRef. This record can preserve the observation and support receiving-use replay, but it cannot satisfy a guard, gate, or claim that depends on exact assignment-bound attribution. If that use later becomes current, establish F.6 for the already admitted act through the same obtaining A.13 assignment and add the resolving reference.

The smallest repair may be a clearer threshold sentence or a changed table, followed by evidence that addresses the named use. If the operator lacks permission to make the change, return that blocker instead of repeating the message. If a later need adds audit use, apply it to later communication or a separately named reevaluation. It does not turn “Got it” into achievement of the earlier use.

A.2.9:5.2 — Show #1 (system archetype: change-control approval gates a deployment)

Situation (messy prose): “Change is approved, so the pipeline may deploy.”

Conformant modeling sketch. The first line names the actual communicative Work. The record then states claims about that occurrence. Check separately that the assignment and enacted-Method relations obtain, that the act satisfies the recognition classification, that the policy is current and applicable, and that the grant obtains. Because the deployment gate relies on exact assignment-bound attribution, this attribution-bearing record must include performedUnderAssignmentRef and its F.6 relation must obtain for the already admitted act through the same A.13 assignment.

• Actual occurrence: SA-Approve-4711 : U.SpeechAct.
• Performer and assignment: ApproverSystemRole is an exact local agential system-role kind whose criterion for this use is the capacity to issue the policy-recognized approval act under the board procedure; CAB_Chair_A is classified under it for this scope and window, and evidence supports that core classification without a Grade or autonomy-profile claim. ChangeControlApproverAssignment is a declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species. Under A.2.1 it declares the ordered holder and assigned-kind positions, their domains U.System and ChangeControlApproverSystemRoleKindDomain, its direct predicate and applicability, and its occurrence-identity rule. Occurrence CAB_Chair_A_ApproverAssignment_2026 obtains with admitted System CAB_Chair_A as holder, ApproverSystemRole as assigned-kind value, and an extent covering the act; it is the same assignment used by A.13 and F.6. CAB_Chair_A performs SA-Approve-4711 under that assignment. Taxonomy ChangeControlSystemRoles_v3 and ChangeControlReferenceScheme_2026 interpret the assertion rather than becoming assignment participants. The assignment grounds attribution. Apply the current approval policy’s authority conditions to CAB_Chair_A.
• Actual Method and containing-system relations: enactsMethod(SA-Approve-4711, ChangeApprovalMethod_v3) independently obtains, with ChangeApprovalMethod_v3 : U.Method. ChangeControlWorkBoundaryRelations declares ApprovalWorkOccursWithinBoardBoundary(work, system) for the board-system delimitation and act window; occurrence ApprovalWorkWithinBoardBoundary-4711 obtains for SA-Approve-4711 and ChangeControlBoardSystem.
• SA-Approve-4711-Record : SpeechActRecord states:
  • speechActOccurrenceRef = SpeechActRef(SA-Approve-4711);
  • actualPerformerSystemRef = U.EntityRef(CAB_Chair_A);
  • performedUnderAssignmentRef = U.RelationRef(PerformedUnderApprovalAssignment-4711), resolving to the F.6 relation between SA-Approve-4711 and CAB_Chair_A_ApproverAssignment_2026;
  • enactsMethodRef = U.EntityRef(ChangeApprovalMethod_v3);
  • methodDescriptionRef = EpistemeRef(ChangeApprovalProcedure_v3), a separate C.2.1 episteme used here to identify and constrain the Method;
  • recognitionTaxonomyRef = EpistemeRef(ChangeControlSpeechActTaxonomy_v3);
  • effectiveReferenceScheme = ChangeControlReferenceScheme_2026;
  • policyOrProcedureRef = EpistemeRef(ChangeControlApprovalPolicy_v3), current for this approval and grant use;
  • channelRef = U.EntityRef(CAB_TicketChannel);
  • actTypes = {SpeechActTypeRef(Approval)} under that taxonomy and scheme;
  • reliancePosture = relianceReady, workContainmentRelationRefs = {U.RelationRef(ApprovalWorkWithinBoardBoundary-4711)}, and window = [2026-06-12T10:03Z, 2026-06-12T10:04Z];
  • utteranceSubjectRefs = {ChangeRequestId(4711)};
  • institutionalTargetRefs = {GrantedPermissionRelationRef@Context(PER-Deploy-4711)};
  • utteranceDescriptionLocators = {U.EpistemeRef(ChangeTicket#4711)} and carrierRefs = {CarrierRef(TicketSystemRecord#4711)};
  • institutes.permissions = {GrantedPermissionRelationRef@Context(PER-Deploy-4711)}.

PER-Deploy-4711 : GrantedPermissionRelation@Context obtains separately under A.2.8.PER:

• beneficiarySystemRoleAssignmentRef = U.RelationRef(OpsBotDeployerAssignment-CD_Pipeline_v7), resolving to the assignment occurrence and its declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species;
• permittedActionSpecificationRef = EpistemeRef(DeployChange4711WorkSpecification);
• institutingSpeechActRef = SA-Approve-4711;
• grantorSystemRoleAssignmentRef = U.RelationRef(CAB_Chair_A_ApproverAssignment_2026);
• grantValidityPolicyRef = EpistemeRef(ChangeControlGrantPolicy_v3) under ChangeControlReferenceScheme_2026; the separately cited ChangeControlApprovalPolicy_v3 supplies the act-to-grant instituting rule;
• scope, revocation stance, and validity interval [2026-06-12T10:04Z, 2026-06-19T10:04Z] are explicit.

The one-minute speech-act interval and seven-day grant interval are different facts even though the latter begins when the former ends.

The utterance is about ChangeRequestId(4711); its policy-selected target and demonstrated effect are the separately obtaining grant. Nothing here claims that the change-request entity itself changed. Gate predicate A-Gate-Deploy-4711 may check exists SpeechAct(type=Approval, utteranceSubjectRefs includes ChangeRequestId(4711), actualPerformerSystemRef=CAB_Chair_A, performedUnderAssignmentRef=PerformedUnderApprovalAssignment-4711, within 90d), consume the current grant, and apply other prerequisites; passing the gate neither institutes nor equals the grant. No F.9 Bridge is needed merely because a pipeline consumes the result: this case uses one exact taxonomy, scheme, and policy. A Bridge becomes current only if another receiving use actually translates or compares a different local meaning.

Near misses. A ticket row alone is a carrier-backed claim, not the act. ChangeApprovalProcedure_v3 is a MethodDescription, not what the act enacts. A current approver assignment does not prove that approval Work occurred. Without the exact current policies, the occurrence remains communicative Work but establishes no grant.

A.2.9:5.3 - Show #2 (episteme archetype: publishing a spec edition)

Situation: “The interface spec declares MUST/SHALL requirements.” This sentence describes the specification’s contents. The current task is to model publication of version 12 and determine its institutional effects.

Conformant modeling sketch. SA-Publish-API-v12 : U.SpeechAct is the act. PublisherSystemRole is an exact local agential system-role kind whose criterion for this use is the capacity to execute the policy-recognized publication act; StandardsEditor_A is classified under it for this scope and window, and evidence supports that core classification without a Grade or autonomy-profile claim. StandardsPublicationAssignment is a declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species. Under A.2.1 it declares the ordered holder and assigned-kind positions, their domains U.System and PublisherSystemRoleKindDomain, its direct predicate and applicability, and its occurrence-identity rule. Occurrence StandardsEditor_A_PublisherAssignment_v12 obtains with admitted System StandardsEditor_A as holder, PublisherSystemRole as assigned-kind value, and an extent covering the act; it is the same assignment used by A.13 and F.6. StandardsEditor_A performs the act under that assignment. Taxonomy StandardsSystemRoles_v12 and APISpecReferenceScheme_v12 interpret the assertion but are not assignment participants. The Work enacts Method SpecPublicationMethod_v12; SpecReleaseProcedure_v12 is only a separate description of that Method.

SpecPublicationWorkBoundaryRelations declares PublicationWorkOccursWithinSpecSystemBoundary(work, system) for the publication-system delimitation and act window; occurrence PublicationWorkWithinSpecSystemBoundary-v12 obtains for SA-Publish-API-v12 and SpecPublicationSystem. SA-Publish-API-v12-Record : SpeechActRecord states:

• speechActOccurrenceRef = SpeechActRef(SA-Publish-API-v12);
• actualPerformerSystemRef = U.EntityRef(StandardsEditor_A) and performedUnderAssignmentRef = U.RelationRef(PerformedUnderPublisherAssignment-v12), resolving to the F.6 relation between the act and StandardsEditor_A_PublisherAssignment_v12;
• enactsMethodRef = U.EntityRef(SpecPublicationMethod_v12) and methodDescriptionRef = EpistemeRef(SpecReleaseProcedure_v12);
• recognitionTaxonomyRef = EpistemeRef(APISpecSpeechActTaxonomy_v12) and effectiveReferenceScheme = APISpecReferenceScheme_v12;
• policyOrProcedureRef = EpistemeRef(APISpecPublicationPolicy_v12) and optional channelRef = U.EntityRef(StandardsReleaseChannel);
• actTypes = {SpeechActTypeRef(Publish), SpeechActTypeRef(DeclareNorms)} under that taxonomy and scheme;
• reliancePosture = relianceReady, workContainmentRelationRefs = {U.RelationRef(PublicationWorkWithinSpecSystemBoundary-v12)}, and window = [2026-06-14T09:00Z, 2026-06-14T09:06Z];
• utteranceSubjectRefs = {EpistemeRef(APISpec_v12)}, institutionalTargetRefs = {EpistemeRef(APISpec_v12)}, utteranceDescriptionLocators = {U.EpistemeRef(APISpec_v12)}, and carrierRefs = {CarrierRef(GitTag:v12), CarrierRef(SignedReleaseArtifact:v12)};
• institutes.publicationRelations = {EpistemePublicationRelationRef(APISpec-v12-Publication)}.

APISpec-v12-Publication : EpistemePublicationRelation separately names the selected APISpec_v12 edition, audience declaration, bounded-use declaration, publication form, exact carrier, availability interval and governing publication conditions under E.24.PUB. It obtains only while that exact edition remains available under those conditions. Its interval need not equal the six-minute publishing act. The same episteme can be both utterance subject and publication object without those relations becoming identical.

Publication makes the selected APISpec_v12 edition available with its claim content unchanged. If D-StdStatus-APISpec_v12-Published is needed, keep it as a separate C.2.1 claim about the exact publication relation and cite its evidence through A.10; do not put the claim in institutes. Norms live in the published utterance description, while StandardsEditor_A performs the publishing Work. Another audience or scheme needs F.9 only when a receiving use actually translates or substitutes the local act or policy meaning.

Bounded non-use. If the only question is what APISpec_v12 says, stop at A.7/C.2/E.17. If the question is whether it is available to an audience, use E.24.PUB. If the question is evidentiary support for a status claim, use A.10. Keep A.2.9 only when the actual communicative Work occurrence itself matters.

A.2.9:6 — Bias-Annotation

Lenses: Gov, Arch, Onto/Epist, Prag, Did. Scope: Kernel universal when the named receiving use of communicative Work, or its governance, eligibility, gating, provenance, or protocol use, makes the act itself current.

• Gov bias: favors explicit accountable performers and auditable records; increases clarity but adds modeling overhead.
• Arch bias: optimizes evolvability by keeping institutional effects referenceable rather than embedded in prose.
• Onto/Epist bias: preserves the kind/actual-act/record/utterance-description/carrier distinctions and requires an actual performer for an occurrence claim.
• Prag bias: models only what is needed for decisions/audit (not full intention/sincerity/perlocutionary psychology).
• Did bias: keeps the record minimal and queryable for state checklists and boundary reviews.

A.2.9:7 — Conformance Checklist (normative)

1. CC‑A.2.9‑1 (Occurrence, performer, and assignment). One Work individual is admitted as SA : U.SpeechAct only through the independent A.13/A.15.1 route: exact actual performer System, local agential kind and criterion, classification, obtaining assignment, scope, working situation, window, adequate core evidence, conditionally consumed profile, grounded communicative history, enacted Method, extent, and containment. Any precise assignment-bound attribution is then checked separately through F.6 with the same obtaining assignment; its declared species, holder, other participants, predicate, and coverage remain recoverable. A SpeechActRecord MUST identify the actual performer through actualPerformerSystemRef, MAY omit performedUnderAssignmentRef when it makes no exact assignment-bound attribution, and MUST make every present attribution reference resolve to the F.6 relation for the already admitted act and the same A.13 assignment. The record MUST NOT claim authority on the basis of assignment alone.
   • CC‑A.2.9‑1a (Occurrence identity and segmentation). Several satisfied actTypes classify one communicative Work unless distinct performance history, enacted Methods, institutional actions, or another admitted discriminator establishes distinct occurrences. Shared utterance, carrier, or interval is not enough; unresolved competing segmentations retain an explicit continuity or segmentation question.
2. CC‑A.2.9‑2 (Exact Method and auxiliary description). The actual occurrence independently satisfies enactsMethod -> U.Method. A current methodDescriptionRef resolves to a separate C.2.1 episteme used to identify, constrain, or justify that Method or intended Work; neither the reference nor the description is enacted.
3. CC‑A.2.9‑3 (Recognition taxonomy and scheme). The actual occurrence satisfies at least one SpeechActTypeRef defined by the exact recognition-taxonomy episteme under the stated effective reference scheme. Merely writing a token into SpeechActRecord.actTypes is insufficient.
4. CC‑A.2.9‑4 (Actual extent versus effect interval). The occurrence has an actual temporal extent, and a record’s window truthfully states it at the required precision. Every instituted relation keeps its own occurrence or validity interval.
5. CC‑A.2.9‑5 (Observable relied-on occurrence and attribution branch). If a checklist, guard, commitment, or grant cites the occurrence, one SpeechActRecord identifies it and cites an applicable utterance, carrier, or direct evidence relation. Evidence-critical uses SHOULD cite at least one carrier through A.10. If that checklist, guard, gate, or claim relies on exact assignment-bound attribution, the record MUST include performedUnderAssignmentRef and satisfy SA-C1 through the separately obtaining F.6 relation for the already admitted act and same A.13 assignment; a record that omits the field cannot close that attribution-dependent use.
6. CC‑A.2.9‑6 (Current policy and typed world-side effects). A record’s institutes.* branch references only an exact commitment or obtaining relation occurrence through its declared relation-occurrence RefKind. An otherGovernedRelations item also names the rule that defines and tests that exact relation. An institutional effect obtains only when the current policy or procedure supplies the applicable constitutive rule and current facts satisfy the direct predicate defined in its pattern or declaration; a status claim and its evidence stay separate.
7. CC‑A.2.9‑7 (F.9 only for actual cross-locality dependence). A receiving claim cites an F.9 Bridge only when it really compares, substitutes, or transfers speech-act or policy meaning across different local taxonomies, schemes, or policies. A new consumer or locality label alone neither requires a Bridge nor transfers force.
8. CC‑A.2.9‑8 (No fabricated method anchor or candidate record). If the actual enactsMethod -> U.Method relation cannot be recovered well enough to establish A.15.1 admission, do not create a conformant SpeechActRecord. Put the unresolved claim, source-gap provenance, known observations, and explicit unknowns in the separate candidate observation stub; that stub remains observation-only and cannot support a gate or deontic provenance. A placeholder U.MethodDescription never closes the gap. After actual admission, create a distinct complete record rather than promoting the stub in place.
9. CC‑A.2.9‑9 (Subject, target, and effect stay distinct). A record uses utteranceSubjectRefs for aboutness and institutionalTargetRefs only for a policy-selected target. It claims actual change or institutional effect only through the exact direct relation; an informative act needs no changed target.
10. CC‑A.2.9‑10 (Optional channel stays separate). A channelRef, utterance description, carrier, or trace may support identification or observation.
11. CC‑A.2.9‑11 (Receiving use, evidence, and later effect). When communicative Work is judged for a named receiving use, state who should understand or do what and which evidence supports that judgement. A response or silence alone establishes neither meaning, achievement, causation, authority, consent, permission, nor admissibility. A revised use applies to later communication or to a separately named reevaluation; it does not turn the earlier response into achievement of the earlier declared use.

A.2.9:8 — Common Anti-Patterns and How to Avoid Them

A.2.9:9 — Consequences

Benefits

• Explicit references to approvals, authorizations, and notices support state-condition and admission checks when the selected predicate or direct consumer requires the act.
• Provides stable provenance: commitments, granted permissions, and status transitions can cite the instituting act explicitly.
• Makes the actual performer recoverable in occurrence and institutional-provenance claims.
• Lets a practitioner judge one named receiving use and repair the smallest blocker without first building a complete occurrence record.
• Keeps observed response, achieved use, later action or change, causal contribution, and permission or admissibility as separately testable questions.

Trade-offs / mitigations

• A receiving-use judgement may remain conversational when no later claim must cite it. A reliance-bearing use requires a small structured SpeechActRecord plus adequate evidence only when the occurrence itself must remain addressable.
• Requires one exact recognition-taxonomy episteme and effective reference scheme for SpeechActTypeRef; mitigated by starting with a small set (Approve, Revoke, Publish, Notify, Authorize) and extending that taxonomy deliberately.

A.2.9:10 — Rationale

FPF uses communicative acts both for ordinary receiving uses and as operationally meaningful events such as approvals, notices, and overrides. A.2.9 begins with who should understand or do what and the evidence needed for that use, then admits U.SpeechAct through the independent A.13/A.15.1 route when exact occurrence identity is current. F.6 follows only for a separate precise assignment-bound attribution. It treats each actual act as a temporally bounded Work individual enacting an exact Method and uses SpeechActRecord only for claim-bearing representation. Occurrence admission remains independent of its description and of any later assignment-bound attribution judgement.

A.2.9:11 — SoTA-Echoing (informative; current alignment with one historical anchor)

Informative. Alignment notes; not normative requirements.

• Adopt — ISO 24617‑2:2020 / multi-dimensional communicative functions. Modern dialogue‑act standards treat communicative behavior as potentially multi‑functional. A.2.9 mirrors this with an actTypes set on one communicative Work and permits shared carriers across several acts only when their world-side histories establish distinct occurrences.
• Adapt — commitment-based semantics for communication (multi-agent/protocol practice, 2015+). A pragmatic way to avoid mental-state modeling is to track communication by its social/institutional effects, especially on commitments, permissions, and protocol states. A.2.9 reflects this via separate institutes.commitments and institutes.permissions links to U.Commitment and GrantedPermissionRelation@Context without modeling sincerity or intention.
• Adopt (warning) — illocutionary pluralism in multiparty discourse (2015+). One utterance commonly performs multiple recognizable functions. A.2.9 avoids the “single force” trap by allowing several recognized functions on one act, while several acts sharing an utterance or carrier still require distinct occurrence grounds.
• Adopt, adapt, reject — purpose-relative grounding evidence and structured interaction. Adopt Clark and Brennan’s (1991) purpose-relative grounding principle as a historical anchor: evidence of understanding must be sufficient for the current purpose. Current studies of grounding gaps in human–LLM dialogue (Shaikh et al., 2024, 2025) reinforce the risk of presumed shared understanding, while one structured-interface study (Do et al., 2024) shows that interaction structure can help in its tested setting. Adapt that line in §5.1 by naming the receiving use and evidence first, then changing only the wording, representation, prerequisite, medium, or interaction that blocks it. Reject any inference that a reply, silence, or favourable outcome fixes meaning, proves achievement, or establishes causal contribution. Reopen this guidance when new evidence changes what supports the named use, when participants or medium change materially, or when a relied-on source no longer transfers; recheck only the affected source claim, evidence threshold, medium, or interaction choice.

A.2.9:12 — Relations

Uses / builds on