| Treating executable text as sufficient Method identity. | Recover the claim-bearing episteme expressed by the repository or executable text and apply A.3.2’s membership test; if it fails, use the pattern for the actual object. If the claim is about the semantic way of doing, name the U.Method, participant meanings, applicability, effects, and bounds. |
| Treating a workflow diagram as the dated Work occurrence. | Recover the claim-bearing episteme expressed by the diagram and apply A.3.2’s membership test; if it fails, use the pattern for the actual object. Use U.WorkPlan for planned work and one Work occurrence admitted under U.Work for the dated occurrence. |
| Inferring prescribed action from graph layout. | Use E.18 when the sentence is about graph structure and C.2.P.DR when layout is being made to prescribe action. If the source actually asserts gate passage or authority, state that separate gate or authority claim. |
| Leaving the optimization-model claim unresolved. | Ask whether the sentence states a formal object, a method description, a reusable way, a work plan, dated Work, or evidence; then keep only that claim in the method position. |
| Inferring safe execution solely from protocol approval. | Separate publication-state claim, gate or authorization claim, evidence claim or assurance claim, work plan, and dated work. |
| Using a team’s identity in place of method semantics. | Keep admitted Systems, local system-role kinds, classifications, assignments, and capability claims with their direct patterns; keep participant meanings, applicability, conditions, effects, and bounds with the Method. |