A.6.3:1 - Problem frame

Engineering work often needs a different body of claims about the same thing. Examples include a safety-focused slice of a system description, a normalized technical card, a conservative translation between notations, or a coverage view built from requirements and design epistemes plus stated correspondence claims.

Several neighboring facts can all be true but are not the same fact:

1. X and Y are identified as C.2.1 epistemes;
2. Y was constructed from X under one declared viewing rule;
3. X and Y have the same EntityOfConcern;
4. Y makes no stronger claims than the identified sources license;
5. Y conforms to an exact viewpoint and is therefore a U.View;
6. a system performed work that first constituted Y;
7. Y was later published through an exact form and carrier.

Ordinary use may need only items 1 through 4. The remaining claims are opened independently.