A.6.9:1 - Problem frame

Cross-context prose routinely compresses a multi-part claim into one adjective: same, equivalent, align, map, matches, or corresponds.

First decide whether this is a Bridge situation at all. A positive F.9 case has two exact F.17 SchemeSenseCell endpoints whose <ReferenceScheme, LocalSenseClaim> projections differ, plus an applicable relation-semantic profile whose predicate is true for those cells. Labels, identifiers, systems, mapping implementations, selected structures, cards, and publications may help identify endpoints or support the predicate; none by itself supplies a resolved endpoint or makes the profile predicate true.

If a Bridge obtains, several questions still remain independent:

• what concrete comparison, substitution, translation, explanation, publication, or other use is proposed;
• the direction of that use;
• the use-specific correspondence rule;
• the semantic-loss tolerance for that use;
• whether the C.2.1 claim about that use is affirmative or negative;
• whether current A.10 evidence or B.3 assurance supports relying on that claim;
• whether separate authorization is required; and
• whether any Work, assertion, publication, relation, operation application, or other receiving object actually occurred.

A.6.9 makes that dispatch visible. It prevents an explanation, mapping witness, score, or polished card from becoming global identity, authorization, or proof of performance.