A.3.1:4.2 - Method and mechanism settlement
Do not decide from words such as method, algorithm, process, or mechanism. First ask what the sentence lets the project assert:
| Plain question | Answer and pattern to use |
|---|---|
| What reusable way of observing, deciding, deriving, changing, or preserving is meant? | State the U.Method under A.3.1: participants, applicability, conditions, intended result or preserved condition, and boundary. |
| What reusable family of operations and laws is declared? | State the separate U.Mechanism declaration under A.6.1: its concern, subject and range meanings, operation algebra, laws, admissibility conditions, and Applicability. |
| What happened on this dated occasion? | Recover every exact actual performer and its obtaining system-role assignment through A.13, then identify the dated Work occurrence independently under A.15.1. Its enacted Method, extent, containing System, bindings, and resources are occurrence-side facts. Add F.6 attribution through that same assignment only when the receiving claim expressly consumes precise assignment-bound attribution; missing or failed F.6 attribution does not erase the independently admitted Work. |
| What correspondence, realization, or support claim is being made around those objects? | Name the relation, its participants, exact predicate, current facts, and subject-pattern locator. If no such predicate is defined, keep the objects separate and stop rather than implying the relation. |
A method statement may cite a mechanism episteme whose content declares operations used by that method. A shared concern or operation name does not make the two values identical. A selector may choose a method, and an A.6.1 application may bind a method as an actual value. State that use only when the selector outcome, application binding, or another admitted direct relation is present; otherwise keep the method and neighboring object separate.
Keep the nearby relation families distinct once, here. An F.9 Bridge between two exact F.17 SchemeSenseCell values states a cross-context sense correspondence; it does not change an effective reference scheme or establish identity. A claim that this Bridge suits one named use remains a separate C.2.1 bounded-use claim. A.10 governs bounded reliance on that claim; use B.3 only for an actual named assurance claim. An A.6.1 realization relation connects a mechanism declaration to a realizer; it is not the mechanism content. C.29 governs a mathematical preservation or representation claim. E.20 governs where mechanism meaning is maintained. Evaluation, measurement, and evidence-use patterns support their own claims; they do not add content to the method or mechanism.
When neither the reusable way nor the reusable operation declaration can be stated, keep the source wording unresolved. Replacing it with a more technical noun is not a repair.