A.3.2:4.7 - Declarative representation boundary

Some method descriptions use declarative representations: constraint sets, graph patterns, state predicates, SQL-like queries, policy rules, e-graphs, monoidal diagrams, or process constraints. Do not translate such representations into an imperative route unless the method claim actually states an ordered action structure.

Even a representation that runs or is internally consistent may have more than one sound interpretation. If a comparison depends on variables and their bindings, surrounding context, or an e-graph kept across compiler stages, say what counts as equal. Agreement under one such rule does not by itself show whether the Method is the same, whether the claims are equivalent, or whether one episteme edition continued into another.

Use C.2.P.DR when a graph path, evidence path, query plan, predicate, checklist, publication face, or neighboring-pattern relation is treated as an action route by its form or layout alone. Recover the direct object or relation and any separate representation use, then check whether the source actually asserts the proposed order. State a genuine ordered Method or WorkPlan as its own subject assertion with the exact defining or constraining ClaimGraph.