A.3.2:4.4 - Method-description acceptance and use boundaries
A project may accept, regulate, prefer, deprecate, or forbid a method description for one stated use, organization, or policy scope. Record that separate publication, gate, authority, or policy claim under its own pattern. It does not establish U.MethodDescription membership.
When a method description is used to prepare or enact work, keep the chain explicit:
- C.2.1 identifies one episteme through its claim content, exact
EntityOfConcern, and effectiveU.ReferenceScheme; A.3.2 judges that same episteme to beU.MethodDescription. Plainly saying that the method description describes the method is shorthand for this constitution and membership judgment, not another binary relation occurrence. U.WorkPlanmay cite that episteme when preparing dated work.- Recover each performing
U.Systemand its obtaining assignment of a local agential system-role kind under A.13. A.15.1 independently admits the dated Work and itsenactsMethodrelation to the Method. If precise assignment-bound attribution is claimed, F.6performedUnderAssignmentuses that same obtaining assignment of a separately declaredU.SystemRoleAssignmentspecies. A separate assertion citesmethodDescriptionRefonly when its claim depends on that edition. - The word result is only a cue. Ask which claim is being made: an A.6.1 application returned a value, a referent changed under A.3.4, Work produced something under A.15.PROD, or a measurement, evaluation, delivery, or acceptance occurred. If the use needs a Work-to-result relation and no exact predicate is defined for it, keep Work and result separate and state
missing-predicate[work-to-result]. A log, trace, measurement, or result episteme supports another claim only through its evidence relation.