A.6.3.NAR:5 - Archetypal Grounding

Tell: NAR turns selected source structure into a reader-useful sequence while keeping ordering, loss, unsupported strengthening, and source return visible. It is not a general story-writing pattern.

A.6.3.NAR:5.1 - Scientific mechanism narrative

A chemistry paper has calculations, candidate mechanisms, failed synthesis attempts, and an unresolved tension between theory and experiment. For an internal explanation, the first useful result is a discovery-ordered account: failed attempts, structural clue, revised mechanism, new experiment, remaining uncertainty. Its compact note says that candidate relations and failed attempts are preserved, full calculations are deferred, connective claims are not proof, and mechanism-proof use returns to the calculations and experiment record.

If a published account must travel independently, be cited or disputed as a stable account, or support consequential reliance, open the exact branch. Mere publication of a source-linked low-reliance explanation does not require it. Source episteme ChemistryMechanism-X states the relevant claims about the reaction case; receiving episteme ChemistryDiscovery-Y concerns the same case. DiscoveryNarrativization : X -> Y records the exact selection, scheme relation, discovery order, preserved and lost claims, prohibited proof overread, and return. Calculation files are not X; the paper form and carrier are not Y.

A.6.3.NAR:5.2 - Architecture trade-off narrative

An architecture team needs to explain why one candidate structure was selected. It first writes a tension-ordered account: current pain, candidate split, data-custody and placement constraints, characteristic trade-off, rejected alternatives, selected structure, and remaining residual. For team orientation, the note identifies the architecture description or decision material, what alternatives are omitted, and that implementation authority remains outside the narrative.

If this account will guide a design decision or travel as architecture rationale, exact source episteme ArchitectureTradeoff-X and exact receiving narrative episteme ArchitectureRationale-Y concern the same project system. ArchitectureRationaleNarrativization : X -> Y records the exact construction and source return. Candidate structures remain independently identified A.22 objects designated by source claims, not source endpoints. The posture is prospective during choice and retrospective during reconstruction; publication, decision, synthesis, and performed Work remain separate.

A.6.3.NAR:5.2.1 - Architecture narrative repair after source change

Later, a rejected candidate gains a new measurement basis and a placement constraint changes. The old story remains coherent but no longer preserves the live candidate set. Lower it to historical orientation, update the selected structures and ordering, state the changed loss and residual, and restore return to the current architecture description or decision material. In an exact case, reidentify only source epistemes whose C.2.1 identity changed, and restate the affected construction n under A.6.3.

C.33 carries captured and lost architecture-relevant structures: preserve the old rejected-candidate relation as history, capture the new candidate-set relation, and mark the obsolete measurement basis lost for current decision use. C.34 carries only a correspondence that actually remains. Implementation or decision use stays non-admissible until the exact architecture claim, decision result, or synthesis result and any required use relation are current.

A.6.3.NAR:5.2.2 - Live unfolding event narrative

A commentator narrates a football match while it unfolds. The ordinary narrative selects score state, possession changes, tactical shape, player roles and positions, momentum, and uncertainty, then uses event and tension order for live orientation. Here player roles is ordinary football language for tactical contribution and behaviour—such as pressing, covering, marking, playmaking, or providing width—not an asserted FPF system-role kind or assignment. The narrative does not turn provisional interpretation into settled event evidence.

Later analysis, statistics, rule disputes, injuries, or official-result use returns to the event record and official sources. If the commentary itself must be replayed, cited, or disputed, an exact case identifies the live event-record episteme MatchState-X, commentary episteme LiveNarrative-Y, and LiveNarrativization : MatchState-X -> LiveNarrative-Y; the match and event stream are not X, and audio is a form or carrier rather than Y.

A.6.3.NAR:5.3 - FPF seminar-route boundary

A team orders selected FPF claims for learners: EntityOfConcern discipline, problem frames, pattern use, relation records, source return, framework authoring, and improvement loops. The first result is a teachable route whose note records prerequisite order, deferred detail, reconstruction tasks, and return to exact FPF passages.

Teaching these claims does not establish that FPF is correct. A separate E.24.PUB occurrence may make a selected narrative episteme available through a teaching form and carrier; publication neither constitutes the narrative episteme nor establishes the NAR construction.

A.6.3.NAR:5.4 - Franchise-continuation storycraft boundary

A storycraft team selects continuity constraints, premise, theme, character-agency treatment, causal plot structure, viewpoint, stakes, and return points from an admitted canon or local source pack, then orders them into a proposed continuation. NAR records selection, order, foregrounding, loss, and source return; it does not turn storycraft vocabulary into FPF Core.

If an exact continuity claim must travel, CanonSelection-X and ContinuationNarrative-Y are independently identified and ContinuationNarrativization : CanonSelection-X -> ContinuationNarrative-Y states the exact construction. Canon classification, generation method, rights, publication, and full narrative-quality evaluation stay outside NAR. Use G.2 for SoTA source-pack synthesis, C.35 for generated results intended to inform architecturing, and the relevant agency, responsibility, evidence, and publication tests for those separate claims.

A.6.3.NAR:5.5 - Homotopy-theory explanation boundary

A teacher turns graph-heavy mathematical material into a didactic sequence of definitions, dependencies, examples, counterexamples, theorem prerequisites, and proof-status boundaries. The ordinary note records which structures a learner can reconstruct, which proof details or generalizations are deferred, and when to return to formal statements. Recalling an analogy alone does not establish a proof or recovery of the mathematical structure being taught.

If the explanation is cited as a stable mathematical account, exact source episteme HomotopySource-X and receiving episteme HomotopyNarrative-Y concern the same mathematical EntityOfConcern; the construction records ordering and visible loss. For mathematical-lens, proof, source-use, evidence, publication, and teaching-evaluation claims, use the patterns that define or test those exact claims.

A.6.3.NAR:5.6 - Automated event-graph narrative

An LLM or NLG system uses source claims designating an event graph, agent goals, constraints, and a domain schema, then performs generation Work and proposes the resulting story-scene carrier. The first inspection compares the proposed sequence with the selected event relations, marks preserved constraints, omissions, and hallucinated connective claims, and limits use to candidate review.

Generated prose is not an admitted narrative episteme merely because it is fluent. Use C.35 when the generated result is intended to inform architecturing; it tests that exact result’s next architecture use. If reliance-facing use later opens exact NAR, independently identify EventPlan-X and StoryScene-Y, then state EventNarrativization : EventPlan-X -> StoryScene-Y, the additional source chain, loss, prohibited strengthening, and return. The graph and schema are not X; the system’s generation Work, evidence, assurance, and publication remain separate.