A.3.4:4.2 - First-use transformation basis

Use these questions as a recognition aid, not as fields of a transformation record:

Worked first use. For a reactor cooling loop, identify the cooling loop as the continuing changed subject, the thermal-power step and stabilization interval as the boundary, the measured temperature-profile facts before and after it, and the operating conditions that delimit the episode. These facts ground CoolingLoopTransformation-7 : U.Transformation. The revised operating method, control-law episteme, measurements, safety evaluation, and release decision remain separate objects. This short fixture identifies no dated adjustment U.Work occurrence.

Choose only the next claim that the use actually needs:

• Work. First identify a dated U.Work occurrence under A.15.1. If both work and transformation participants are identified, apply the routes and stops in 4.2.4. The short reactor fixture has not identified that work occurrence, so it makes no work-to-change claim and does not yet report a missing governor.
• Safety evaluation. Use case-local evaluatesTransformation@PlantSafety-v4(SafetyEvaluation-7, CoolingLoopTransformation-7, CoolingLoopSafetyCriterion-v4) only when all three participants are identified and the predicate’s obtaining conditions hold. Identify a decision separately when one is claimed.
• Publication. Use a C.2.1 assertion whose EntityOfConcern is CoolingLoopTransformation-7 and identify its E.24.PUB publication occurrence.

If none of these uses is being claimed, keep the identified transformation and add no neighboring relation.

Choose the next branch now. If the current result is one identified transformation and the use needs no positive claim that several changes compose one change or that the change is a holon, continue directly at 4.3. Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.3 are not prerequisites for that ordinary route. Open them only when the use needs one of those two positive claims; the current advanced branch returns the parked blocker and selects no future architecture.

A.3.4:4.2.1 - Keep proposed component and whole-configuration changes separate

Use component change and whole-configuration change only as ordinary question roles for actual U.Transformation occurrences already identified through A.3.4:4.1. They are not additional U-kinds, record fields, or evidence that one change is part of another.

Identify every proposed component change and the proposed whole-configuration change independently. A sampled point, arbitrary subinterval, method step, work part, flow node, graph edge, trace segment, formula term, before-and-after image, shared changed subject, or temporal inclusion establishes neither composition nor absence of finer parts.

The neighboring general patterns do not silently answer the composition question. A.22 can identify a selected structure whose relation organization changes; C.27.TA can identify temporal aspects; A.14 and C.13 define structural mereology and a Γ_m construction trace. None of those results by itself says that several actual changes compose one actual change. A materialized Γ_m.sum trace is a C.2.1 episteme about identified entity-part relations, assembly, and direct identity or reidentification conditions.

One independently identified change of a selected configuration can therefore remain a valid configuration transformation. If the use needs no positive composition or transformation-holon claim, continue with that transformation and the ordinary neighboring-object guidance in 4.3-4.8. If it does need such a claim, retain the identified changes and stop with missing transformation-composition governor; a proposed local compound claim also stops with missing derivation substrate. Neither stop says that composition is false or that any change is partless.

A.3.4:4.2.3 - Apply A.1 only after composition is independently established

Membership in U.Transformation supplies no holonhood. A.1 remains the authority for the constructive criterion. This edition of A.3.4 supplies neither a positive transformation-composition result nor the candidate, constituents, constructive part relations, and assembly needed by A.1. Therefore an independently identified configuration transformation remains a valid U.Transformation, while positive U.Holon classification on the basis of transformation composition stops. The stop is not evidence that no such whole or parts exist.

If future accepted work supplies one whole transformation and its construction facts, apply A.1 without changing its test or assuming which relation form that work chose. A.1 still requires the candidate, constituents, constructive part relations and assembly, reidentification rule, composition-grounded whole-level characteristic, and possible participation in a larger constructive assembly. Recover those facts from the patterns that define them at that time.

A.1 also keeps world-side satisfaction or failure separate from an A.6.1 true | false | unknown recognition evaluation, an optional C.2.1 assertion, evidence and assurance, G.11 currentness, receiving-work disposition, and B.2 whole reidentification. Follow A.1 for that separation rather than repeating its full table here.

Stress the current boundary before classifying:

• a pressure increase may be identified as one U.Transformation at the resolution needed by the use; sampling or subdivision establishes neither constructive parts nor absence of such parts;
• a switch transition may be treated as effectively instantaneous at the selected temporal resolution and identified as one U.Transformation; that resolution claim establishes neither indivisibility nor parts;
• subintervals of continuous biological growth may each be independently identified as transformations, but this pattern does not decide whether they compose one change;
• a formal transformation can be actual under a selected formal substrate, while its formula, morphism, or proof term remains a C.29 representation and supplies no holonhood;
• mounting, wiring, connection, and whole-configuration changes may each be identified independently; the current edition does not make them constituents of one transformation, so positive A.1 classification on that basis does not begin.

A.3.4:4.2.4 - Keep work and production claims outside transformation identity

Do not infer a work-to-change connection from shared timing, a common affected subject, or the word successful. Once the U.Work and U.Transformation participants are identified, apply a matching current subject predicate or, when A.6.RCD disposition 2 permits it, state the local compound claim over named base facts and an admitted substrate. Preserve the applicable A.6.RCD result: missing-governor for an absent needed governing rule; missing-information for an unavailable fact needed by an existing test; factually unsupported when sufficient facts fail its positive test; that rule’s inapplicable result when applicability fails; or missing-substrate when the proposed derivation lacks admitted constructor semantics.

Production is a separate question. For a production claim, test production-work participation, first existence of an entity, and production completion separately. Apply A.15.PROD to the exact work, work part, subject-identity facts, completion criterion, and direct effect facts. A.3.4 contributes only the independently identified transformations.

Filled positive branch — result: C.2.1 assertion BuildWorkPopulatedStore-12 states the local connection between ReleaseBinary12_BuildWork_2026-07-21T0900_0912 : U.Work and ArtifactStorePopulationTransformation_12 : U.Transformation. The BuildOps predicate BuildWorkPopulatedStore@BuildOps-v12(work, transformation) holds only when the storeWrite application performed as part of that work changes the same ArtifactStorePartition_12 across the same boundary. BuildApplication_12 supplies the performed application and its builtBinary -> ReleaseBinary_12 binding; the partition’s before/after artifact-presence facts ground the transformation. This is an A.6.RCD disposition-2 local compound claim, not a universal FPF work-to-change kind or occurrence.

Pump 14 — current result and earlier no-governor stage: A.3.4 identifies T-P14-PRESSURE-RISE : U.Transformation as the bounded change of continuing HydraulicLoop_P14; the loop’s discharge-pressure characteristic is belowBand at the opening boundary and inBand at the closing boundary. The current case record contains relation-declaration episteme P14-REL-2026, owned by Pump14OperationsRelations, which declares AdjustmentWorkCausesPressureRise for exact participants W-P14-ADJUST-1010-1020 : U.Work and T-P14-PRESSURE-RISE; a separately stated case fact satisfies its actual-causation predicate. Therefore write: W-P14-ADJUST-1010-1020 caused T-P14-PRESSURE-RISE. In the explicitly earlier case record, P14-REL-2026 is absent; at that epistemic stage, keep the same Work and transformation, return missing-governor: work-to-change claim for <W-P14-ADJUST-1010-1020, T-P14-PRESSURE-RISE>, and route the missing declaration to Pump14OperationsRelations instead of asserting causation.