A.6.A:4.6 - Separation from quality, capability, commitment, and work
A.6.A SHALL prevent the collapse of action invitation language into neighbouring families.
- A statement about better, worse, fit, or merit belongs to C.16.Q.
- A statement about what a system can do in general belongs to capability wording, method wording, or method-description wording under A.6.F and the subject pattern for the asserted capability, method, or method-description claim.
- A statement about what must be done belongs to A.6.B when the wording asserts an A-classified admissibility claim or a D-classified commitment claim.
- A statement about what was actually done belongs to A.15 and exact dated
U.Work, whoseenactsMethodrelation points to the exactU.Method. - A result that selects a Method identifies that Method without becoming a plan or occurrence; any
methodDescriptionRefremains auxiliary. A proposed action can remain a proposal without inventing its Method. A Description episteme never acts and is never what Work enacts. - When a sentence carries both evaluative and action-oriented content, make the two claims and their respective grounds distinguishable. Use linked records only when the receiving use needs them.
Two clear clauses or sentences may suffice.
Examples:
- “This scene is good for grasping” can combine a physical-opportunity claim with an evaluation under a particular criterion. Recover each claim and its rule.
- “This alarm requires rollback” needs the actual gate or duty rule, if that is the intended claim.
- “The robot can grasp this handle” can concern ability under conditions or a situated physical opportunity. Recover which result the reader needs and apply its rule.
- “The operator clicked rollback” is work, not invitation.