A.3.2:4.3 - Method-description claim content
The membership threshold is positive but small: at least one claim must answer a method-side question about the way of doing. A name, author, citation, catalogue entry, or approval status does not answer such a question. This threshold distinguishes description from mention; it is not a completeness test for a receiving use.
Name the receiving use before asking whether this method-description edition is adequate for it. A receiving use is not required for U.MethodDescription membership. If no use is current, stop at the membership result and make no adequacy claim.
| Proposed use | Where that use belongs | What to check in this edition |
|---|---|---|
| membership only | A.3.2 judges the already identified C.2.1 episteme | no adequacy judgment; do not fabricate a receiver |
| preparing planned work | A.15.2 is the pattern for the U.WorkPlan; a gate, authority, or evaluation claim stays with its own pattern | does this edition state the applicability, preconditions, parameters, bounds, and stops that the plan cites? |
| enacting or recording dated work | A.15.1 is the pattern for the Work occurrence; its assertion may cite methodDescriptionRef when the edition matters | does this edition state the method claims used by that enactment or record? Actual participants and results still need their own relations. |
| comparing, revising, or auditing claim content | C.2.1 identifies each episteme and any persisted comparison or audit result; the concrete evaluation, evidence, or assurance claim stays with its subject pattern | which method claims are preserved, absent, stale, or incompatible for this comparison or audit? |
| publishing or teaching | C.2.1 is the pattern for the claim-bearing or teaching episteme; E.24.PUB is the pattern for publication occurrence and form; use A.15.1 only for teaching Work that actually happened | does this edition preserve the method distinctions needed by this audience or teaching use? |
A.3.2 creates no universal method-description-use relation. Name the concrete receiving object and the pattern that defines or tests the current claim about it. Comparing claim sets, revising a publication, or checking teaching content does not require a fabricated Work occurrence or decision object.
Then inspect the claim concerns that matter for that named use:
| Claim concern | Question for the named receiving use |
|---|---|
| Method described | Which admitted U.Method is the episteme’s EntityOfConcern, and under which effective reference scheme is it identified? |
| Transformation or enactment concern | What way of changing, producing, deciding, learning, or checking does the method organize? |
| Generic participant and boundary meanings | Which kinds of entities, resources, conditions, or interfaces may participate in a future enactment, and what method-side meaning does each have? These are semantic claims, not RelationSignature SlotSpecs, OperationAlgebra positions, planned fillers, or actual participants. |
| Preconditions | Under which states, guards, invariants, participant conditions, or environmental conditions can the method be used? |
| Intended effects | Which postconditions, intended effects, preserved conditions, and failure semantics are claimed for the method? |
| Bounds | Which latency, precision, cost, safety, reliability, uncertainty, or other local bounds constrain the method? |
| System-role kinds and capabilities | Which local system-role kinds and capability thresholds matter for enactment? |
| Parameters | Which values may vary between work occurrences, over which ranges, and when are they bound? |
| Evaluation conditions | Which criterion compares which concrete Work occurrence, referent, measurement, or result, and which pattern contains the defining content for that comparison? |
| Internal composition | Which admitted methods are parts of one composite method, and what organization constructs that whole? |
| Variation, edition, and refinement | Which claim content is preserved or changed, and is the current claim about another episteme edition, equivalence of claim content, or refinement of the method itself? |
| Edition and publication use | Which episteme edition is relied on, and does its publication use affect currentness or availability? |
Calendars, assignees, work authorization, gate passage, and dated execution witnesses are governed by planning, assignment, gate, or work-occurrence patterns. They may cite a method description.
A U.MethodDescription describes one admitted Method. It is not the RelationSignature that declares participants for one relation kind, the A.6.1 OperationAlgebra content that declares arguments and results for an operation family, the U.WorkPlan that states intended work, a dated Work occurrence, or any actual-participation relation of that occurrence.