A.6.6:10 - Rationale

Why focus on base declaration rather than a metaphor. The recurring ambiguity is not “how to attach”, but which direct relation is being asserted between which participants. A readable relation-specific sentence exposes that answer; an optional declaration can then preserve it for a named reuse.

Why keep the direct relation, assertion, and evidence separate. The relation’s predicate determines whether the world-side fact obtains. A C.2.1 episteme may affirm or deny it under the applicable polarity test, and A.2.4/A.10 may support reliance on that assertion. Conflating these objects lets a record or carrier stand in for truth. A base is a participant in the selected direct relation. Evidence or other supporting material justifies an assertion only through its own direct relations. Conflating the two makes both reasoning and audit unreliable.

Why add scope and Gamma_time conditionally. They are required when the direct predicate or receiving use changes across extent or time. Adding them everywhere hides the ordinary relation behind a universal qualifier form. A declaration is never “everywhere forever” by default in FPF. Scope makes applicability explicit; Γ_time prevents hidden time dependence (“recent”, “current”, “latest”).

Why prohibit kind edits. Changing the relation kind changes meaning; treating it as an update erases history and breaks continuity discipline.

Why retain a local declaration-change lexicon. When a named receiver tracks assertion or declaration history, the labels distinguish which episteme field changed. They are optional and do not describe actual relation change without the direct relation’s own predicate. When that history is needed, explicit change classes distinguish rebase, retime, rescope, and witness refresh; a generic edit label hides those differences and recreates the ambiguity A.6.5 removed at the slot layer.