A.22:1 - Problem frame

Use this pattern when a practitioner needs to select U.Structure as the EntityOfConcern: an organization among exact constituents and obtaining relations, selected to expose a relation class, applied constraint, invariant, variation class, preserved arrangement, or lost arrangement that changes the next engineering or reasoning action.

The first A.22 question is not “which diagram or record shows the structure?” It is “which organization is selected for this named use?” Recover that organization in this order:

1. identify every constituent independently through the content that defines its kind and identity;
2. recover the exact relation occurrences among those constituents that actually obtain under their direct predicates;
3. state the exact constraints applied to those constituents and relations, plus the named selection-use frame that says what question or action this organization serves;
4. name the resulting selected organization and the admissible action or stop that follows.

When the use makes a load-bearing claim that a structure was selected, also recover the selecting system, its dated selection work and exact method-enactment relation, and the exact participant relations or A.6.1 bindings used by that work. Those neighboring facts support the selection judgment; they do not enter U.Structure identity. If the judgment must persist, identify a separate C.2.1 result episteme whose claim content designates the selected structure.

The first useful move is small:

StructureQuestionCard@Project:
  named selection use:
  independently identified constituents:
  exact obtaining relation occurrences selected:
  constraints applied:
  selected structure:
  preserved structure:
  lost, hidden, or excluded structure:
  admissible action:
  stop or non-admissible overread: exact stop or return condition
  grounded non-admissible overread, optional:
  selecting system, method, and dated work, when selection is claimed:
  selection-result episteme, when a durable result is needed:
  claim scope or effective reference scheme of that claim, if current:
  reliance relation, if a neighboring reliance claim is being made:

StructureQuestionCard@Project is a project-side triage aid for this selected-structure use. It is not a new structure kind. Fill the reliance row only when extraction, coarsening, source-description, base-dependence, grounding, evidence, lens, simulation, representation, or action reliance is being claimed; otherwise leave it unused and keep the move on selected structure.

Here @Project is a compatibility and retrieval cue, not a type or relation assertion. It identifies neither a project entity nor a composite project U.Work, and it establishes no context, authority, viewpoint, or parthood. When this card is used in relation to one actual project, name that exact composite U.Work and the relation by which the current structure-selection work, decision, description, or other identified object concerns it. Otherwise no project-work reference is implied. The same rule applies to ArchitectureStructureKindTriage@Project below.

Stop at this card when it makes the next structure use clear. Open heavier records only when a named description, view, publication, extraction, coarsening, comparison, mathematical-lens, architecture-description, or other neighboring claim is being made.

What goes wrong if A.22 is missed: the practitioner reasons from the visible diagram, source publication, source-use record, lens output, generated representation, project record, or architecture description instead of asking which organization is selected and what loss or reliance boundary matters for action.

What A.22 buys in practice: a practitioner can name selected structure, state preserved and lost structure, name source-basis or lens reliance only when it is being claimed, add a StructureUseReturnCondition when loss matters, and apply the FPF definition or test for any non-structure claim being made.

Not this pattern when the question under repair is grounded architecture adequacy, architecture structural-view adequacy, or mathematical-lens use. Use C.30, C.30.ASV, or C.29 respectively. For any other claim, use the pattern that defines or tests that claim and keep A.22 only to the selected-structure portion.

Thin precision-restoration pointer: when the wording still may name a structure, a structure description, an architecture description, a view, a publication form, or another exact claim, use C.30.P or C.30.STRAT first as triggered. Apply A.22 only after the selected-structure claim or structure-view portion is recoverable.