A.3.1:4.8 - Method relations, composition, and Work enactment

Start with the practical question, not a graph or the umbrella word specialization. Ask what must be decided now.

Current question	First useful result
Does this reusable way meet one or more Method-kind criteria?	Use `C.3.2` for the admissibility check and a `true`, `false`, or `unknown` judgment. An out-of-scope request is `not-applicable` and forms no judgment.
Does one Method kind have several broader kinds?	Check each broader-kind claim under `C.3.1`.
Does one Method contribute to several larger Methods?	Use `B.1.5` for every part–whole pair and every whole construction. Each whole keeps its own action, boundary, interfaces, and reidentification rule.
Are two Methods being compared for refinement or replacement?	First identify both Methods and the use that needs the comparison. State the direction, what remains, what changes, and the material guards or losses. A sentence or local claim is often enough for one use.
Is this another question—for example, parameter variation, family grouping, fallback, dispatch, a description, a selected structure, performed Work, capability, provider contribution, or cultural change?	Use the pattern that defines or tests that claim. The label alone establishes no Method kind, Method part, or relation occurrence.

Before claiming refinement or replacement, decide whether the changed account still identifies the same Method. If it does, state what was preserved and what changed; do not invent a relation between two Methods. If two Methods are identified, a refinement comparison states its direction and use, the semantics retained from the first Method, what the second narrows or strengthens, and the action or result that changes.

A replacement comparison says which Method may replace which other Method, for what use, under which preconditions, with which intended result or preserved condition, and which bounds, interfaces, losses, and guards must remain visible. Do not infer the reverse direction. Shared kind criteria or similar descriptions do not prove replacement.

When the replacement question concerns a constituent used by one or several encompassing Methods, B.1.5.RS supplies the comparison: follow the candidate through each relevant use and retain any adaptation or narrower applicability. For the distinct question of which Methods are being enacted together through a current action, use B.1.5.EW.

A parameter change inside the Method’s declared applicability and identity rule is variation of the same Method. A change to a participant meaning, result, bound, interface, or acceptance condition that matters to identity identifies another Method or leaves the identity question unresolved.

A G.5 family row cites already identified Methods and states why they are grouped for the current use. A fallback can belong to a B.1.5 whole construction, a G.5 selector rule or result, or a local relation-bearing claim. A dispatch rule says which selector branch applies; state the current branch and its basis.

When FPF has no admitted predicate for refinement, replacement, fallback, or another relation-bearing claim, use A.6.RCD to choose the lightest sufficient result. For one use, a local claim may be enough; repeated use of the same rule may justify a reusable predicate definition. Continue through E.24 and E.24.UK only when a named later use must treat the relation occurrences themselves as stable objects. A local claim or predicate definition cannot become an A.22 edge.

Short positive. ChangeImpactReview can meet two Method-kind criteria and also be required by the independent constructions of ApproveControlSoftwareRelease and InvestigateFieldIncident. Those judgments and two methodPartOf facts remain separate.

Selector anti-case. A RapidRecoveryMethods row groups RollbackRelease, DisableFeatureFlag, and ShiftTraffic for one selector. Its stated grouping basis and fallback policy may support a G.5 result, but they do not establish a Method kind, one composite Method, or a refinement or replacement relation. If the fallback condition is incomplete, return the missing fact instead of drawing an edge.

MethodRelationStructure is only a local name for an A.22 structure selected from independently identified constituents and relations that already obtain. It is not a durable kind, Method holon, or relation type. Composition, refinement, replacement, parameter variation, family grouping, fallback, dispatch, and enactment are recognition cues; the cue does not decide the claim.

Filled A.22 basis — enacted-method review. For this one-off review, a practitioner selects only two A.15.1 enactsMethod occurrences.

Independently identified constituents. InspectPumpSeal@PumpMaintenance-2026 and ClassifyPumpSealCondition@PumpMaintenance-2026 are two U.Method values. Pump37SealInspectionWork-2026-07-25T0900-0908 and Pump37SealClassificationWork-2026-07-25T0910-0916 are two admitted A.15.1 Work occurrences.

PumpDiagnosticAssignment is a declared U.SystemRoleAssignment species. Under A.2.1 it defines the holder and assigned-kind participant meanings and uses PumpDiagnosticSystemRoleKindDomain as the local assigned-kind domain. Occurrence Pump37DiagnosticAssignment-2026-07-25 has PumpDiagnosticService-A : U.System as holder, PumpDiagnosticSystemRole as the assigned-kind value admitted by that domain, and an extent covering both Work occurrences. That System performs each Work under the assignment and within Pump37MaintenanceCell-A.
Selected obtaining relations. enactsMethod(Pump37SealInspectionWork-2026-07-25T0900-0908, InspectPumpSeal@PumpMaintenance-2026) and enactsMethod(Pump37SealClassificationWork-2026-07-25T0910-0916, ClassifyPumpSealCondition@PumpMaintenance-2026) obtain under A.15.1.
Applied constraint claims. DiagnosticReviewWindowConstraint states that an eligible enactsMethod occurrence must have one of the two independently admitted Work individuals as its Work participant, and that Work’s temporal extent must lie within 09:00-09:20 on 2026-07-25. NoCompositionFromEnactmentOrderConstraint states that their timestamps and order establish no serial, fallback, or whole-method relation.
Selection-use frame. DiagnosticMethodEnactmentFrame states the question: which methods did these two Work occurrences enact during the review window? The admissible action is to list the two enactsMethod occurrences in that review.

Those four discriminators identify DiagnosticMethodEnactmentStructure-2026-07-25-0900-0920, locally designated MethodRelationStructure for this use. Reidentify it only from its four constituents, two obtaining relations, two applied constraint claims, and use frame. If the project relies on a persisted selection, separately identify the System that made it, the selection Method and dated Work, the participation relation or A.6.1 binding used by that Work, and the C.2.1 result episteme. Add a C.11 choice claim only if one is asserted. If responsibility for that choice is also claimed, cite its direct domain predicate, actual participants, applicability, and occurrence identity or return the exact missing governor.

Missing-governor stop. Suppose a note additionally calls ClassifyPumpSealCondition@PumpMaintenance-2026 a fallback for InspectPumpSeal@PumpMaintenance-2026, but supplies no direct fallback predicate, compatible participant meanings, or occurrence-identity rule. Keep the two methods and the note, omit the fallback relation, and return missing-governor: fallback relation for <ClassifyPumpSealCondition@PumpMaintenance-2026, InspectPumpSeal@PumpMaintenance-2026>. If the question is specifically about fallback organization, do not select a positive structure until that relation and all four A.22 discriminators are available.

Method-holon composition is not A.14 component mereology. Source labels such as SerialStepOf or ParallelFactorOf remain cues until B.1.5 or another subject pattern supplies an admitted relation with participants and an obtaining rule. A method-description node is not a submethod unless the described object is independently identified as a U.Method.

Work composition is occurrence-side. Work may interleave, split, retry, or fail differently from the method description. A temporal Work part can enact the same whole method, and an episode can change Work continuity without changing method identity. Call a candidate a submethod only when it has its own reusable action, preconditions, intended result or preserved condition, boundary, and whole-method relation.

Quick distinction. A step label, graph node, detector component, event-log segment, telemetry interval, work-plan item, or document section is not a submethod by position. If it states a reusable way with method-level conditions and a relation to the whole method, test it under A.3.1 and B.1.5. If it states what happened, when it happened, what a component did, or what a record shows, use the direct Work, mechanism, evidence, or description pattern instead.

Mathematical or graphical notation may describe the selected structure under C.29 or occur in a U.MethodDescription. A registry row lists or describes candidates; state any relation among them separately under its defining pattern.