A.6.4:2 - Problem

Without this discipline:

1. Notation decides ontology. A changed coordinate system, mathematical domain, model kind, or predicate vocabulary is treated as proof that the EntityOfConcern changed.
2. Retargeting is confused with viewing. A real move from one independently identified entity to another is called another view, so its loss and receiving-use boundary disappear.
3. The invariant and loss remain rhetoric. Phrases such as “energy is preserved” or “the model summarizes the data” do not say which claim survives, which distinctions disappear, or which use remains sound.
4. A mapping apparatus replaces the actual case. A generic kind bridge, score, diagram, or reversible optic is demanded even when the exact endpoints, q, and current facts already let the reader judge the named use.
5. Arrow, claim, and execution collapse. A mathematical arrow is treated as if it granted a use, performed an operation, or produced an episteme.
6. Structural reinterpretation duplicates the core rule. E.18 or a discipline pack invents another retargeting ontology instead of placing the same arrow and separate use claim in its own transformation-flow structure.
7. Neighboring changes disappear into one label. Grounding, representation, scope, operating conditions, viewpoint selection, publication, operation application, and performed Work are folded into retargeting instead of being identified only when they occur.