A.6.9:5 - Archetypal Grounding
A.6.9:5.1 - System archetype: IAM User and CRM Customer
The ambiguous sentence is: “An IAM User is the same as a CRM Customer.”
Treat this as a schematic hypothetical illustration. The abbreviated endpoint readings are:
SenseCell(IAMRoleReferenceScheme-v3, User-human-or-service-account-role);SenseCell(CRMRoleReferenceScheme-v5, Customer-commercial-party-role).
These sketches name the intended scheme editions and sense readings. A full case must still resolve each <ReferenceScheme by value, LocalExpression, LocalSenseClaim> value, with User and Customer as the respective local expressions.
For the illustration, assume that the local meanings share some human cases, while service accounts and prospects provide cases excluded by the opposite reading. These are additional hypothetical premises, not facts recovered from the ambiguous sentence. Profile P-IAM-CRM-OVERLAP-v2 states the symmetric Partial-overlap relation, exact endpoint readings, overlap and difference conditions, edition basis, truth condition, and required membership evidence. The example additionally stipulates that the profile applies and its predicate is true, and therefore uses b-iam-crm as an obtaining Bridge. The profile description lists what a full test needs; it does not supply that test or its evidence.
Now state the use separately. Dashboard team proposes u-actor-label: render IAM users as “actors” in a CRM-oriented comparison. Direction d-iam-crm is IAM-to-CRM dashboard reading. Rule r-actor keeps account eligibility and customer eligibility visible as separate columns. Tolerance t-actor allows the shared label but no eligibility, assignment, workflow, or Work inference. A C.2.1 claim about b-iam-crm is affirmative for <u-actor-label,d-iam-crm,r-actor,t-actor>.
Reliance on that claim remains conditional on the exact A.10 evidence-provenance relation and RelianceDisposition=pass for the named dashboard comparison. A hypothetical passing result would be an additional example premise, not a result recovered from the endpoint sketches. It would not authorize data processing, create a system-role assignment, or prove that a dashboard publication occurred. Reverse label reuse is another bounded-use claim even though the Bridge relation is symmetric.
An optional actual card may package the Bridge claim, this bounded-use claim, observed counterexamples, the A.10 path and disposition, currentness, and nearest non-use. Its EntityOfConcern is b-iam-crm; the card neither creates the relation nor performs the dashboard work.
If a later workflow isolates HumanVerifiedUser and VerifiedCustomer, refine both cells and test another Bridge. A stronger use claim over the broad cells cannot repair a false or unsuitable predicate.
A.6.9:5.2 - Episteme archetype: Person in two knowledge-graph schemes
The sentence is: “Person in KG-A is equivalent to Person in KG-B.” The named readings are Person-including-fictional under KG-A v4 and Person-real-with-external-id under KG-B v7. Sherlock Holmes illustrates the fictional-person distinction; the external-id rule adds another membership condition. These cues establish neither Partial-overlap nor inclusion.
To test Partial-overlap, recover the exact membership definitions and a common admissible case, an A-only case and a B-only case. To test inclusion, establish the chosen proper-inclusion predicate from those definitions and case facts; the short labels do not supply it. Until then, stop and name the missing membership definition or case fact. No exact overlap Bridge is asserted by this sketch.
The two proposed uses remain conditional illustrations. If an exact Bridge obtains, a glossary comparison that labels both rows “Person” while displaying the fiction and external-id differences can receive affirmative polarity only for a stated direction, correspondence rule and loss tolerance, with a warranted A.10 result when relied on. A type-structure merge receives negative polarity only when its exact direction and merging rule cannot preserve membership and its tolerance permits no such loss. Those rule and case premises still have to be supplied.
When their basis is supplied, both claims concern the same obtaining Bridge; neither changes its identity. Refining KG-A into RealPerson and FictionalPerson changes an endpoint and opens a new Bridge test.
A.6.9:5.3 - Published NAICS language and a Conformist cue
Start with separate objects. C.2.1 identifies exact model episteme edition NAICS-2022-ClassificationEpisteme by its exact ClaimGraph, EntityOfConcern, and effective ReferenceScheme; A.1 independently identifies exact IndustryClassificationApplication-7 : U.System. If availability matters, E.24.PUB separately tests EpistemePublicationRelation(NAICS-2022-ClassificationEpisteme, ClassificationAudienceDeclaration-2, ClassificationUseDeclaration-5, NAICS-2022-TableForm, NAICS-2022-PDFCarrier) together with its exact form-expression and form-bearing occurrences. The episteme, publication occurrence, form, carrier, declarations, and application system keep different identities. Publication establishes availability to the exact audience and use declarations. Access, adoption, applicability, actual use, performed Work, and any application-side parthood remain claims under their own predicates and facts.
Recover the use branch before selecting structure. Require HolderSystem(ClassificationAssignment-3)=IndustryClassificationApplication-7, exact F.6 performedUnderAssignment(ClassificationWork-4, ClassificationAssignment-3), and the application’s actual use of the selected NAICS content during that Work concerning exact ClassifiedOrganization-42; only then may ModelUseRelation(ClassificationAssignment-3, NAICS-2022-ClassificationEpisteme, ClassificationWork-4, ClassifiedOrganization-42) obtain. A positive NAICSClassificationModelUseStructure additionally requires exact ModelApplicabilityRelation(NAICS-2022-ClassificationEpisteme, ClassifiedOrganization-42, ClassificationClaimScope), fixed-content coherence with the exact classification-expression episteme under a declared predicate and ReferenceScheme, exact applied constraint claims naming the edition and classification distinctions to preserve, and NAICSClassificationFrame: “Which NAICS edition and distinctions govern the classification of ClassifiedOrganization-42 as a complete organization?” Model use comes from the actual-use facts above; any application-system parthood claim requires its own predicate and facts. Without the complete A.1.1/A.22 basis, stop at publication availability or the exact direct relation that does obtain.
Treat DDD Conformist only as a Plain cue to a proposed directed subject dependency. Preserve the exact proposed source, target, direction, adoption condition, dependency predicate, update authority, required preserved meaning, permitted loss, claim scope, and standard-edition basis. A positive occurrence would additionally require exact participant meanings and fillers, its direct relation kind and predicate, obtaining and applicability conditions, occurrence identity and recurrence, all supplied by one compatible direct subject governor. The label, published-language status, table edge, and selected structure may cue or represent the proposal; only a compatible direct subject governor supplies its predicate and occurrence rules. When no such governor is current, return missing CROSS-LOCALITY-BRIDGE governor.
An F.9 Bridge may separately obtain between exact NAICS-side and application-side SchemeSenseCell values and may support one bounded interpretation claim. Adoption, dependency, update authority, preservation of application meaning, and a subject-crossing occurrence remain separately governed claims. A later NAICS edition is a distinct C.2.1 episteme. Before NAICSClassificationModelUseStructure is selected for that edition, establish applicability, actual use, coherence, preservation, loss, and any governed crossing for the exact edition. Republishing unchanged claims in another form or carrier changes the publication objects only; it does not establish the application’s use of another episteme edition.