A.2:5 - Archetypal Grounding

A.2:5.1 - Reviewer Membership and a Non-Circular Subkind

The JournalReview practice records one local kind under C.3. The source label locates the definition; the kind itself is recovered through its system-candidate domain, substantive-review condition, boundary probes, and continuity rule:

ReviewerSystemRole : U.Kind
  definitionProvenance: JournalReview-2026 (comparison cue only)
  candidateValueKind: U.System
  operativeMembershipDistinction:
    can supply a substantive review judgment that meets the current
    JournalReview acceptance conditions
  intendedBoundary:
    a system that applies those conditions is a member; a report or a
    system that merely comments without applying them is not
  continuityRule:
    continue the kind only while that candidate range and distinction continue
KindSignature@ReviewerSystemRole/e3:
  EntityOfConcern: ReviewerSystemRole
  candidateValueKind: U.System
  membershipCriterion:
    the candidate system can perform substantive-review Work or produce
    the review-judgment result class under the declared conditions and bounds;
    the A.2.2 ability assertion has the support and currentness required here;
    the current JournalReview capability-fit predicate confirms the submission,
    review-phase, and judgment-quality conditions for this slice
  sliceApplicabilityConditions:
    the submission, review phase, and temporal selector
  effectiveReferenceScheme: JournalReview-Scheme-2026/e3
  assumptionsAndDependencies:
    the qualified holder-ability claim, its currentness condition and capability-fit predicate

The capability and fit predicate are governed under A.2.2. They are features used by the criterion, not substitutes for the kind or judgment. One application can therefore state:

J(Alice, ReviewerSystemRole, KindSignature@ReviewerSystemRole/e3, ReviewSlice-17) = true
J(Alice, ReviewerSystemRole, KindSignature@ReviewerSystemRole/e3, LaterSlice-18) = false

The later result follows only from a known failed currentness or fit condition. Ending an assignment alone changes neither judgment because this signature does not use assignment as a feature. If a dependency is unavailable, the result is unknown.

For RoboticsEngineerSystemRole U.SubkindOf EngineerSystemRole, evaluate the two aligned signatures independently for every admitted candidate and slice needed by the declared domain. Only after every defined true narrower judgment implies a true broader judgment may C.3.1 admit the relation. The proposed edge proves neither judgment. An independently obtaining robotics assignment also proves neither judgment unless the relevant signature explicitly uses it as a non-circular feature.

A.2:5.2 - Pump in a Cooling Loop

CoolingCirculatorSystemRole names a local kind whose candidates are admitted systems. Its membership condition requires the governed circulation features needed for the plant-operation contribution; member/non-member probes and the continuity rule expose the boundary. PlantOperations-2026 locates the current definition but does not identify the kind. PumpUnit-3 is judged against that exact signature edition and slice; the judgment does not change pump identity.

When the plant also claims an assignment, it uses a directly declared species:

PlantCoolingSystemRoleAssignment : U.SystemRoleAssignment
  HolderSystemSlot: U.System
  AssignedSystemRoleKindSlot: PlantOperationsSystemRoleKindDomain
  predicate:
    the holder is selected for the assigned plant-operation contribution
    under the declared operating conditions

PlantCoolingAssignment@PumpUnit3:
  HolderSystemSlot: PumpUnit-3
  AssignedSystemRoleKindSlot: CoolingCirculatorSystemRole
  assignmentInterval: [2026-06-01, open]

The interval is assertion content about the known extent; the occurrence continues only while the species predicate obtains without interruption for the same participants. PlantOperationsSystemRoleVocabulary-2026, its reference scheme, and the relevant signature can be cited as interpretation evidence. They are not extra assignment participants.

Closing the open interval later refines the same occurrence description when uninterrupted identity is preserved; the stated interval neither makes the relation obtain nor becomes another participant.

The assignment proves neither circulation capability over every operating region nor performed circulation or maintenance Work. Those claims use A.2.2, A.15.1, and the applicable Method, transformation, measurement, and evidence relations.

A.2:5.3 - A Standard Used in Design Work

An engineering team uses RFC 9110 while designing an HTTP service. Keep these claims separate:

DesignTeam-2 independently counts under ProtocolDesignerSystemRole in the current slice when its signature criterion is satisfied.
For this hypothetical assignment-bound case, suppose the practice has declared ProtocolDesignSystemRoleAssignment under U.SystemRoleAssignment according to A.2.1, and DesignAssignment-1 is one obtaining occurrence with holder DesignTeam-2 and assigned kind ProtocolDesignerSystemRole.
The RFC publication is the source episteme in the direct source-use or external-rule relation selected by the design claim.
In this hypothetical case, recover DesignTeam-2 as the exact actual performer through A.13 with that same obtaining DesignAssignment-1, then let A.15.1 independently admit the dated design Work. Suppose this Work was performed under DesignAssignment-1; F.6 afterward establishes that relation to this same assignment. F.6 identifies neither assignment nor performer, and failed attribution would leave the Work intact. The Work may separately produce a MethodDescription or SystemDescription only through the applicable production claim.

A.2:5.4 - The Same Label in Two Local Practices

An editorial-review practice and a safety-assurance practice can each use ReviewerSystemRole. Compare their exact C.3 definitions before deciding whether one kind continues. In this case the safety-assurance condition admits a materially different contribution and member/non-member boundary, so two kinds are present. The practice names help locate those definitions; a shared label, vocabulary source, or reference-scheme spelling establishes neither sameness nor a Bridge.

Suppose a staffing dashboard proposes u-reviewer-display: show assignments from both practices in one Reviewer column. First recover the two exact local kinds and any F.17 cells needed by the displayed expressions; then establish only the C.3.3 kind relation and F.9 local-sense relation that the display actually consumes. State a separate C.2.1 bounded-use assertion with direction d-safety-to-editorial-display, rule r-preserve-reviewer-differences, and tolerance t-shared-label-only, plus polarity and effective scheme. The rule keeps the practices’ admission, independence, evidence, and completion fields separate and tolerates only the shared display label.

Current A.10 provenance and RelianceDisposition=pass can support that display use. They do not justify substitution between assignments or merge the two kinds. If an actual named assurance claim about that use is current, only its B.3 result can support that bounded assurance use; a non-positive disposition stops or narrows it. Consequence alone creates no assurance claim. A Bridge Card can package the Bridge, bounded-use assertion, evidence, and disposition, but it grants no assignment, eligibility, capability, use suitability, or performed-Work inference. A selected BoundedModelUseStructure is cited only in the receiving use whose interpretation it changes.

A.2:5.5 - A Relation Participant Slot Named `role`

An external notation may call one relation position role. Apply E.10.ROLE and A.6.RSIR to recover the participant meaning and declaration-local SlotKind. Its ValueKind is the participant kind. The external label creates neither a system-role kind nor an assignment. A System participates in the relation as declared; it holds a system-role assignment only through a separate occurrence of a declared assignment species.