A.6.C:4.4 — MVPK faces are not second contracts
The atomic claims grouped for one boundary use live in one canonical A.6.B Claim Register set; the four-question lens creates no parallel claim set. Publication faces present that set for a bounded reader/use under E.17:
- Faces may select, summarize, and render claims for audiences. A selected episteme’s
U.Viewmembership separately requires E.17.0 conformance to an exact viewpoint. - Faces must not add a new boundary claim; they project the existing classified claims.
- Any face-level decision-relevant or normative-looking statement SHOULD cite the underlying claim ID(s) or canonical location(s). A new boundary claim MUST be added to its canonical source before publication on a face. Informative commentary may explain source claims without adding boundary semantics.
Keyword rule (faces).
If a face contains a BCP-14 keyword, each sentence MUST cite its existing classified claim ID or canonical location and direct object. Duty/recommendation/prohibition and current-grant projections cite their D claim; a gate projection cites its A claim; exercise or evaluated-finding projections cite their E claim. Use the selected A.6 A6-AW-* row for permission-looking wording. A face-level keyword manufactures no object or quadrant. If the boundary claim is not traceable, put it in its canonical source before publishing it on the face; informative commentary is limited to explanation that adds no boundary semantics.
To avoid keyword-evasion, equivalent deontic phrasings (e.g., “is required to…”, “is prohibited from…”) SHOULD follow the same claim-reference discipline even when no BCP-14 keyword is present.
Projection may be paraphrased for audience fit, but it MUST NOT change the deontic or semantic claim; if exactness is critical or disputed, use verbatim.
This prevents faces from becoming “second contracts” by paraphrase drift.