A.6.0:4 - Solution

Use U.Signature as the dependent durable U-kind for a reusable law-governed declaration episteme. Identify the episteme through its content, exact EntityOfConcernRef, and effective U.ReferenceScheme. Let the declaration state its vocabulary, laws, and applicability. Keep the declared subject and every later realization under their direct kinds and relations.

Local signature mantra. Name the subject of the reusable declaration and the range of values or results it covers. List the terms another user may reuse, the laws that user must preserve, and where those laws apply. Add relation-participant declarations, operation inputs or results, slice-and-membership rules, or dependencies only when one named reuse calls for them. Keep implementations, evaluations, work, and publication outside the declaration.

In FPF terms, the subject is identified by EntityOfConcernRef; SubjectKind, RangedValueKind, and optional ResultKind state the declared subject and range; and Vocabulary, Laws, and Applicability state the reusable terms, regularities, and use boundary. Add A.6.5 SlotSpecs only when a reusable RelationSignature must preserve the same participant meanings and types. Add A.6.1 operation arguments or results only for a current mechanism declaration. Add SliceSet and ExtentRule only when the same declared kind can have different members at selected context slices. Declare a dependency only when another signature actually relies on imported or provided names or laws. If the named reuse still works without an optional addition, leave that addition out. Implementations and realizations remain under A.6.1, evaluations under their direct evaluation patterns, work under A.15.1, and publication under E.24.PUB. The mantra is Plain recall wording. Apply A.22.CGUS only when one independently identified A.22 structure has local loci and at least two potential continuations defined by its selected relations and applied constraints.

A.6.0:4.1 - Admit and identify U.Signature

U.Signature is a same-individual dependent durable U-kind under U.Episteme. C.2.1 first identifies one episteme through one EpistemeConstitutionRelation by its complete claim content, exact independently governed EntityOfConcern, and effective U.ReferenceScheme. The claim graph and reference scheme are epistemic constituents; the EntityOfConcern is not. A.6.0 adds a stable membership condition and practitioner-facing declaration use to that already identified individual. It adds no second constitution relation, identity discriminator, assembly, composition rule, or holon test.

An already identified episteme is a U.Signature exactly when, under its effective U.ReferenceScheme, its complete identity-bearing claim content carries a reusable law-governed declaration about its exact EntityOfConcern and includes all of the following with substantive meaning:

• direct SubjectKind and RangedValueKind declarations that identify the declared subject and value range;
• Vocabulary that supplies the designators needed to reuse the declaration;
• Laws that state the reusable predicates, equations, invariants, closure conditions, or other declared regularities;
• Applicability that bounds where those claims are used;
• ResultKind, SliceSet, ExtentRule, and dependency, import, or provided-name declarations only when those distinctions are current for the declaration.

Judge the complete claim content, not a selected subset or the presence of field names. A minimal directly authored signature may carry the declaration content required by the A.6.0 membership predicate in one claim graph without citing any smaller episteme. A signature may instead cite separately identified source or dependency epistemes, provided its own claim graph names the dependency relation and the declaration meaning thereby reused. Those source epistemes remain separate individuals connected through their governing dependency, source-use, edition, or other direct relations; they are not components assembled into the signature, and their citation alone does not establish signature membership.

E.24.UK governs the one-time public admission of the dependent kind. In project work, authoring a new declaration candidate, or revising a declaration so that its claim content, exact EntityOfConcern, or effective U.ReferenceScheme changes, yields a resulting C.2.1 discriminator triple. When the one EpistemeConstitutionRelation for that triple obtains, C.2.1 identifies the resulting episteme; A.6.0 then judges whether that already identified individual satisfies the U.Signature membership predicate, without adding a second constitution occurrence or identity discriminator. An optional separately reviewable membership judgment is another classification-assertion episteme whose exact EntityOfConcern is the candidate. For citation, comparison, reuse, or membership judgment with unchanged C.2.1 discriminators, the candidate episteme and its constitution occurrence remain the same.

The signature keeps the C.2.1 identity of the same episteme. Two designations resolve to that same individual only while the complete claim content, exact EntityOfConcern, and effective U.ReferenceScheme are unchanged. Changing any discriminator identifies another U.Episteme; call that new individual a U.Signature only if it independently satisfies the membership predicate above. State an edition, refinement, or supersession relation only when its own direct predicate obtains.

The declared subject remains the independently governed EntityOfConcern, not the signature. A realization of the declaration remains under its direct pattern. A description whose EntityOfConcern is the signature is another episteme. Publication occurrence, publication form, U.PresentationCarrier, and representations remain separate objects and relations under their direct patterns; publication or visible form establishes neither identity nor membership. G.11 currentness and every later work or use likewise remain neighboring judgments and relations rather than signature identity components.

A.6.0:4.2 - Write the minimum declaration content

The four content groups are semantic components, not a mandatory visual table. A publication form may present them as paragraphs, a table, formal declarations, or another representation. A publication occurrence makes a selected episteme edition available through that form without changing its content.

SubjectKind and RangedValueKind are declaration-content components. C.3 governs the declared kinds; E.24.UK governs public U-kind admission. A.2.6 supplies addressable U.ContextSlice values; C.3.2 governs the membership judgment and any optional materialized KindExtension representation. SliceSet is not a generic space, time interval, numeric or result range, or changing dataset. ExtentRule tells how the declared kind’s members are determined at one named slice. A time selector may be part of a U.ContextSlice; a value or result range stays in RangedValueKind or ResultKind; changing data stays with its subject pattern; and a claim-bearing mathematical set representation opens C.29 only for a mathematical-lens use. Leave both fields out unless membership of the same declared kind can differ across the named slices.

Applicability and meaning remain distinct. The effective U.ReferenceScheme is part of episteme identity. The exact U.ClaimScope delimits use; when current for the declaration, a relevant time interval, selected CHR:ReferencePlane, or selected BoundedModelUseStructure : U.Structure further delimits or organizes applicability. Retain both the effective U.ReferenceScheme and exact U.ClaimScope when adding these applicability qualifiers.

A.6.0:4.3 - Use RelationSignature for reusable relation declaration

RelationSignature is the relation-facing use of one U.Signature. It is not a second U-kind.

Its EntityOfConcernRef identifies one exact already admitted direct relation kind. If A.6.RCD settles a derived relation kind, that kind counts here only after its direct subject settlement states the participant meanings, exact base-definition and named-substrate dependencies, obtaining and applicability laws, and a direct occurrence-identity rule. The derivation or predicate definition may be cited as a dependency, but a predicate-definition episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the reusable predicate definition rather than the admitted relation kind is not a RelationSignature. A RelationSignature declares:

• the relation-kind designator;
• one SlotSpec for each world-side participant meaning that needs reusable typed declaration;
• the direct pattern’s obtaining predicate and declared laws, restated for reuse without claiming that the predicate is satisfied;
• applicability of those claims;
• the occurrence-identity rule supplied by the direct relation pattern, restated for reuse without applying it to any occurrence;
• for an admitted derived relation kind, the exact base relation definitions, named substrate and authorized derivation operation, and applicability dependencies already established by the direct subject settlement.

The direct relation pattern remains authoritative for when the relation obtains and how an individuated occurrence keeps identity. The signature declares those rules for reuse.

A direct relation may obtain before anyone writes a signature. Ordinary prose may therefore stop at:

During Shift-17, Robot-7 is assigned as inspector through InspectionAssignment-17.

This is an A.2.1 assertion about an occurrence of declared species MaintenanceInspectionAssignment under U.SystemRoleAssignment. A.2.1 defines the species’ predicate and occurrence-identity rule. The occurrence has Robot-7 as holder, InspectorSystemRole as assigned-kind value, and only the values required for any other declared participants. When several patterns must reuse those participant meanings, predicate, and identity rule, the species’ RelationSignature becomes useful for typed assertions and F.6 attribution. When another claim must refer to this assignment episode, use A.6.REL for explicit individuation.

A.6.0:4.4 - Declare participant meanings and operation parameters under different specializations

For each world-side participant meaning whose reusable declaration is current, a RelationSignature declares one A.6.5 SlotSpec. The following code sketch is a compact representation of that declaration:

SlotSpec := <SlotKind, ValueKind, refMode>
refMode := ByValue | RefKind

Use A.6.5 to declare these participant meanings. In the simple MaintenanceInspectionAssignment species, use HolderSystemSlot and one declaration-local AssignedSystemRoleKindSlot with MaintenanceSystemRoleKindDomain as its ValueKind and ByValue as its refMode. In InspectionAssignment-17, InspectorSystemRole is the assigned-kind participant value. A stronger species adds only a real participant that changes its predicate or occurrence identity. Taxonomy episteme, reference scheme, interval description, and generic context may interpret an assertion but are not generic world-side assignment participants. Do not force SlotSpecs into a one-off assertion that has no receiving typed use.

A formal or mechanism declaration may instead need named operation arguments and a result. A.6.1 governs that OperationAlgebra. A representation may use a mathematical operand order, product, function, or tuple. A.6.3.RT governs a same-EntityOfConcern representation-scheme transition; C.29 governs only a mathematical-lens use. Those operation parameters do not become RelationSignature SlotSpecs or SlotKinds merely because the same notation uses angle brackets or numbered arguments. When a relation claim consumes a mathematical representation, state an explicit correspondence between the representation’s operands and the independently declared SlotSpecs.

A.6.0:4.5 - Expose real declaration dependencies

Open a SignatureManifest only after this test. Add an import when removing one named provider would leave this declaration unable to interpret a required non-local term or unable to replay one of its stated laws; name the provider and the exact required term or law. Add a provide entry when this declaration introduces a named term or law and one named dependent declaration relies on it. A background citation, similar vocabulary, shared publication, list membership, or convenient replay order is not a dependency.

The SignatureManifest heading co-locates entries with three functions: id is an identity-neutral display designator; signatureRef and its optional .edition pin form a governed reference to an already recoverable signature episteme; and imports and provides may carry or represent dependency and name-or-law introduction claims in the signature’s exact U.ClaimGraph.

The SignatureManifest section may carry entries with these functions:

A change confined to the spelling of id or the serialization of signatureRef preserves episteme identity only when the reference still resolves to the same episteme and its exact claim content, exact EntityOfConcern, and effective U.ReferenceScheme remain unchanged. Changing signatureRef.edition selects another already recoverable edition; it does not by itself establish an edition relation, historical continuity, or U.Signature membership for the referent. If a C.2.1 identity discriminator changes, A.6.0:4.10 governs the resulting identity.

Use these dependency-manifest predicates:

• SM-1 Term-and-law resolution. Every required non-local term or exact law claim resolves under the effective reference scheme to the one named provider declaration that supplies it.
• SM-2 No redeclaration and legal direction. A provided term or law is not also supplied by a transitive import under the same effective reference scheme, and the claimed provider-to-consumer direction matches the predicate of the exact dependency or source-use relation rather than a drawn arrow or list order.
• SM-3 Replay order and cycles. A selected one-pass provider-to-consumer replay method requires an acyclic ordering of the recovered dependency designations. A cycle means that this replay method cannot run; it does not by itself prove that every semantic dependency in the cycle is prohibited. Apply each exact dependency governor to its edge. If no current governor decides whether the semantic cycle is legal, return an exact missing-governor blocker instead of deleting an edge or inventing an order. Keep the graph representation, cycle check, and ordering notation separate from the semantic dependency claims; use C.29 only when a mathematical-lens use is current.
• SM-4 Export boundary. A dependent declaration relies on provided names and cited laws, not on private publication layout or implementation detail.

The remove-the-provider test above identifies a candidate dependency. State the exact dependency or source-use relation only after its direct predicate is satisfied for the named provider, consumer, term or law, and use. A citation, manifest entry, list membership, or replay result can support an assertion about that relation. A provider or provider-edition change may require resolution, replay, or currentness review; it changes the consumer signature’s identity only when the consumer’s own claim content, exact EntityOfConcern, or effective reference scheme changes.

A governed reference to a separately identified object is not an exported vocabulary name merely because that reference appears in the signature.

A.6.0:4.6 - Specialize declaration use without minting another root kind

A signature profile is a constrained use of the same U.Signature kind. The profile states which content is current and which neighboring patterns define or constrain later use.

profile = FormalSubstrate. Declare vocabulary and terms, inference kinds, formal laws, applicability, and the actual declaration dependencies carried in the signature’s claim content. A.6.1 separately governs OperationAlgebra, operation designators, typed argument and result positions, admission conditions, application, and realization. An A.6.1 declaration may cite the FormalSubstrate signature. When a mathematical object is selected as a lens for another entity, C.29 governs the lens-use claim.

profile = PrincipleFrame. Write the postulates and invariants, then name the observable distinction each one requires: what must be observed or compared to tell whether the frame’s claim holds. Cite the separately identified characteristic or measurement declaration that makes that distinction checkable; units, scales, CHR:ReferencePlane values, comparators, and normalizations remain under A.17, A.18, C.16, CHR, A.19.CPM, and A.19.UNM. If the text decides whether a proposed operation application, run, or gate may proceed, move that decision to A.6.1 or the direct evaluation and gate pattern, including A.21/C.11 where applicable. A PrincipleFrame may state what a decision must respect, but it is not that admission decision. For ordinary reuse, apply the frame’s Applicability and the direct subject rules for any reference-plane or model-use-structure question. When the receiving claim needs an exact semantic relation between two local senses whose interpretation bases differ, first recover the two exact F.17 local senses; cite an F.9 Bridge only if its direct predicate obtains and state the bounded-use claim, direction, preservation, loss, and any required reliance separately. Cited declarations remain independently identified objects, not extra PrincipleFrame identity components.

State a relation between two signatures directly as refinement, conservative extension, equivalence, or another independently governed relation only when that relation’s own predicate obtains. Before using the refinement label, compare all three reusable content duties: Vocabulary, Laws, and Applicability. Name the terms preserved, added, or removed; the laws preserved, strengthened, or changed; and whether the population, time, CHR:ReferencePlane, and claim scope stay the same, narrow, or widen. An unexplained applicability widening fails the refinement claim; use another direct relation whose predicate explicitly permits the widening instead of hiding it under refinement. Use a C.29 morphism only when a mathematical structure-preservation claim is actually current.

A.6.0:4.6a - Rule-content actual-use predicate declaration

RuleContentBasisFindingDefinition@R7 is one ordinary U.Signature for two reusable predicates over claim content. Its exact EntityOfConcern is the reusable predicate definition; both SubjectKind and RangedValueKind are U.ClaimGraph. No distinct result kind is current because an ordinary C.2.1 assertion states whether a predicate obtains. The declaration is not a RelationSignature: dependentContent and baseContent are semantic parameters, not world-side relation participants or A.6.5 SlotSpecs.

Its vocabulary includes SelectedRuleContentSubgraphDesignation@RuleContentBasisFindingDefinition-R7, derivedUsingRuleContent@RuleContentBasisFindingDefinition-R7, and evaluatedAgainstRuleContent@RuleContentBasisFindingDefinition-R7. The designation resolves one exact nonempty base subgraph selected for one identified use. RuleContentDerivationProfile@R7, RuleContentEvaluationProfile@R7, and RuleContentBasisFamilyAlgebra@R7 are named subgraphs of this signature’s ClaimGraph.

The derivation predicate obtains only when an identified derivation claim used exact baseContent as a formal premise under a declared inference rule or application to produce exact dependentContent. The evaluation predicate obtains only when an identified criterion-selection claim selected exact baseContent for one exact bounded evaluation claim concerning dependentContent. Definition, constraint, applicability, consultation, citation, influence, provenance, evidence, evaluation Work, result, sufficiency, assurance, reliance, authority, and publication establish neither predicate by themselves.

An assertion names the exact actual-use claim identity and bounded receiving use, and adds scope, temporal policy, scheme interpretation, Bridge/loss, or source/witness qualifications only when each independently changes that assertion. A changed subject, content, mode, use, actual-use claim, scope extension, time policy, or interpreted endpoint identifies a successor assertion under C.2.1 rather than mutating every use of this reusable definition.

R7 is a changed-law successor of historical RuleContentBasisFindingDefinition@R6, not identity-continuous reuse. The C.2.1 succession assertion names predecessor, successor, changeClass = reusable-law-change, the changed law set—formal-premise/criterion-selection truth split, owner-claim removal, per-question analysis separation, independent candidate axes, pairwise compatibility, temporal-policy identity, and non-permissive reliance—and inheritedAcceptanceOrUse = none. A dependency pin selects R6 or R7 explicitly; a pin change reopens dependants rather than silently retargeting them.

A.6.0:4.6b - Candidate-basis establishment and family disposition

RuleContentBasisFindingDefinition@R8 is a changed-law successor of R7. It preserves R7’s two actual-use predicate tests and adds the following laws to its named RuleContentBasisFamilyAlgebra@R8 subgraph. Candidate sufficiency is a separate operation: it asks whether a basis can support the exact derivation or bounded evaluation under named rules, not whether that basis was actually used. Existing R7 actual-use assertions retain their exact definition and use pins. R8 inherits no acceptance, actual use or reliance merely from succession.

For one exact analysis question and temporal cell under E.4.PFR §3.6, take a finite candidate universe V and its supported open/closed state. Each candidate is a finite nonempty conjunctive set of semantic-base subgraphs. The receiving contract fixes which axes are required before evaluation. Exactness, applicability and sufficiency are always required; acceptance and witness join that conjunction only when the receiving contract requires them. Each axis has an independently supported true/false result or remains unknown.

Sufficiency. In derive mode, the named inference rules derive the exact dependent proposition from the candidate basis with no undeclared premises. In evaluate mode, the basis supplies the criteria and facts required by the named evaluation rule to obtain its bounded result. That result may be negative: a supported failing evaluation does not make its basis insufficient. These laws neither establish derivedUsingRuleContent nor evaluatedAgainstRuleContent without their separate actual-use facts.

Establishment. A candidate is established iff all required axes are true. It is decisively defeated iff at least one required axis is false, even when another is unknown. Otherwise its establishment remains unresolved. Minimality is an additional result: a candidate is inclusion-minimal when no proper sub-basis in the stated comparison domain is sufficient under the same rules. Unknown or false optional minimality does not remove an established candidate. A request for a minimal family qualifies that additional answer separately.

Let F contain all and only established candidates. Keep independently sufficient alternatives even when a required overlapping pair has incompatible consequences. A required pair is one whose compatibility can change the cell disposition or named receiver action; its result is compatible, established incompatible, or unresolved. Apply conflict precedence, then exactly one row:

An unknown axis on an already defeated candidate is not unresolved establishment. With fewer than two established candidates, no required pair exists and the all-compatible pair condition is vacuously true. The supported needed-content claim retains its reconsideration condition. A closed empty universe alone proves no missing need. Without a named receiving analysis need, take E.4.PFR’s no-analysis exit before this operation.

R8’s succession claim names R7, R8, changeClass = reusable-law-change, the added sufficiency/required-axis/conjunction/minimality/partition laws and inheritedAcceptanceOrUse = none. A dependency pin chooses the exact definition edition; R8 does not retarget R7 consumers. The result remains a non-permissive analysis assertion under C.2.1.

A.6.0:4.7 - Keep declaration, realization, and use under their direct patterns

The rows name the direct patterns that define or constrain these common adjacent objects and claims.

A.6.0:4.8 - Add explicit objects only for a named receiving use

Make three decisions by naming the next sentence, comparison, tool, or declaration that must work:

1. State the direct relation and stop. Use this branch when the task only asks whether one direct relation’s predicate holds for its actual participants under its subject pattern’s conditions. State the affirmative or negative claim under that pattern, or an exact governed modal claim when that family is current. For example, During Shift-17, Robot-7 is assigned as inspector through InspectionAssignment-17 is a complete current A.2.1 assertion when the direct MaintenanceInspectionAssignment predicate holds. Add an A.10 or receiving-evaluation reliance judgment only when the task separately asks whether to rely on the assertion.
2. Share one declaration. Reuse or author a signature when at least two named claims or consumers must use the same participant meanings, vocabulary, laws, or applicability. For example, a staffing assertion and an F.6 Work-attribution consumer can cite the MaintenanceInspectionAssignment RelationSignature when both must interpret HolderSystemSlot, its declaration-local AssignedSystemRoleKindSlot with MaintenanceSystemRoleKindDomain as ValueKind and ByValue as refMode, any real species-specific participants, and the same direct predicate. In InspectionAssignment-17, InspectorSystemRole is the assigned-kind participant value. One sentence that merely repeats the word assigned does not open this branch. When a declaration is authored, C.2.1 identifies the episteme from its own claim content, exact EntityOfConcern, and effective reference scheme; A.6.0 then judges U.Signature membership.
3. Distinguish one occurrence. Open occurrence identity only when a later claim must refer to that same occurrence, compare or qualify it, track its beginning, continuation, cessation, or change, or use it as a participant of another relation. For example, F.6 work attribution must cite the exact covering assignment episode, and a staffing history that compares Shift-17 with a later reassignment must apply A.2.1’s uninterrupted-obtaining same-versus-new-occurrence rule. A roster-row identifier that merely designates an assertion identifies neither the assignment occurrence nor a new occurrence; use F.18 only after A.2.1 has distinguished the occurrence to which a reference should resolve.

These are the receiving-use thresholds. They concern three different objects and are not stages that construct a relation or episteme from need. The stop is observable: the target direct assertion, shared declaration for the named consumers, or occurrence-referencing claim can be written without another unresolved object. That target motivates authoring, selection, reuse, or explicit individuation. Apply C.2.1 to episteme identity and the direct relation pattern to occurrence identity. Selecting or reusing an unchanged episteme leaves its identity unchanged. When entries, branches, returns, or stops form one reusable structure, apply A.22.CGUS only after the A.22 identity, local locus bindings, selected relations and constraints, and potential continuations are recoverable.

A.6.0:4.9 - Recover formal-substrate and PrincipleFrame uses by direct governing relation

The same independently identified formal object or episteme can participate in these different uses while retaining its own identity and kind. State the applicable declaration, dependency, operation, lens, or carry-through relation for the receiving use.

For a PrincipleFrame, write one postulate or invariant together with the observable difference that would count for or against it. Cite a characteristic, measurement, unit, scale, reference plane, comparator, or normalization declaration only when that declaration is needed to state or check that difference; an informative citation is not a dependency. Do not put an operation-admission, run-acceptance, or gate-passage verdict into the frame. For ordinary reuse, apply the frame’s Applicability and the direct subject rules for any reference-plane or model-use-structure question. If the receiving claim needs an exact semantic relation between two local senses whose interpretation bases differ, recover the two exact F.17 local senses and test the direct F.9 predicate; cite a Bridge only when it obtains, state preservation and loss in a separate bounded-use claim, and establish any required reliance before use. A cited declaration may be superseded, or an independently obtaining dependency relation may cease or be replaced, without retroactively changing the PrincipleFrame’s identity. Changing the PrincipleFrame’s own citation or dependency claim changes its claim content and therefore identifies another episteme; the same follows when its exact EntityOfConcern or effective reference scheme changes. Any edition, refinement, or supersession relation between the two epistemes must independently obtain and must pass the Vocabulary-Laws-Applicability comparison above.

A.6.0:4.10 - Change the exact object that changed

Apply C.2.1 first. Every U.Episteme is identified by exact claim content carried by one exact U.ClaimGraph, one exact EntityOfConcern, and one effective U.ReferenceScheme. Changing any member of this mandatory triple identifies another episteme. That episteme is a U.Signature only when it independently satisfies A.6.0 membership. A changed discriminator, SignatureId, or signatureRef.edition value does not by itself establish signature membership or historical continuity.

A change to imports or provides changes the consumer signature’s identity only when it changes that signature’s own claim content. A changed provider or provider edition can instead leave the consumer episteme unchanged while requiring the named dependency or source-use assertion, resolution result, replay result, or currentness judgment to be reconsidered.

A changed later use does not change the signature unless the change alters one of its C.2.1 identity discriminators. For example, a new mechanism realization remains a new realization, and a new publication layout remains a new publication form.

Connect two different epistemes by EpistemeEditionRelation, refinement, supersession, or another independently governed continuity relation only when that relation’s own predicate obtains under its direct governor. Revision work, shared title, changed identifier, citation, or sequence alone establishes no such occurrence.

When a once-current signature becomes stale while its identity remains recoverable, G.11 governs currentness and selection among recoverable editions.

Reopen declaration authoring when a proposed change affects the signature’s exact claim content, EntityOfConcern, effective reference scheme, declared dependency, Vocabulary, Laws, Applicability, or the boundary of a FormalSubstrate, PrincipleFrame, or other admitted profile. The revised claim-bearing candidate is another C.2.1 episteme; A.6.0 judges its signature membership again, and any edition, refinement, or supersession relation remains a separate claim under its direct governor. Also reopen the affected declaration element when current problem-owning-domain or formal-method SoTA changes the term, inference form, law shape, applicability condition, or realization boundary being declared.

When a governed kind name, SubjectKind, RangedValueKind, SlotKind, RefKind, or exported term is renamed, apply F.19 to the changed wording; use E.10 for unresolved lexical questions and F.18 for durable naming. Accept the rename only when a cold reader can still recover the same FPF kind, declaration use, and practical action; otherwise keep the old name or return the naming defect. Do not revise the signature merely because a realization, work occurrence, measurement, Bridge use, evidence-use relation, publication, provider currentness, or G.11 selection changed. Update that neighboring object under its subject pattern, and reopen the signature only if its own claim or dependency content must change.