A.3.2:4.5 - Method, mechanism, and formal-substrate boundary
Do not classify by the source word alone. First say in plain words what someone is trying to change, produce, select, derive, control, or maintain and what the sentence asserts about it. Then use E.10.ARCH:3.1 to separate method, mechanism, formal-object, plan, Work, and result claims; write each claim under its own pattern.
For A.3.2 ask only: is this episteme about one admitted Method, and does at least one claim say how that Method is done? If the same source also asserts a mechanism, formal declaration, work plan, dated Work, evidence use, gate, result, publication, or temporal claim, state that claim separately.
Use these claim checks instead of forcing distinct claims into one generic relation:
- A method-description membership judgment identifies one admitted
U.Methodas the episteme’s exactEntityOfConcernand finds at least one substantive claim about that method as a way of doing. - A method claim states the reusable way of doing, its participant meanings, applicability, conditions, intended result or preserved condition, and bounds.
- A formal-substrate claim concerns the selected formal object, structure, invariant, or mathematical declaration used for reasoning.
- A mechanism-declaration claim concerns the law-governed operation family, direct subject and range fields, operation algebra, law set, admissibility predicates, and applicability. Transport, audit, realization, evaluation, and evidence-use relations remain separately governed neighboring claims.
- A work claim concerns one dated occurrence independently admitted under A.15.1: each performing System with its A.13 core, including an obtaining assignment of a separately declared species, the enacted Method, temporal extent, and containing System. Add F.6 attribution through that same assignment only when precise assignment-bound attribution is asserted. Add participant, resource, or work-to-referent claims only through relations that actually obtain; otherwise return the corresponding missing-governor result.
Connect these claims only through an admitted relation whose predicate and participants are present. If no pattern or declaration defines the needed relation, keep the objects separate rather than inferring dual typing.
Example: a U.MethodDescription episteme for a scheduling Method can meet the membership rule while a MILP file represents some of its claims. Another episteme may describe the mathematical formulation; a selector mechanism may declare operations over candidate Methods; a dated solver run is Work; and an issued production-schedule episteme is a separate result. Use that result as evidence only through a current A.10 path and its bounded disposition. Without that path, keep the result available but do not rely on it as evidence for another claim.