A.6.C:5.1 — Tell
When boundary contract-language leaves a consequential ambiguity, recover the actual claim and referent, then answer only the live questions below. Keep ordinary metonymy when its capable participant and relation are locally recoverable; a literal act or individual commitment needs that participant and the governing conditions.
- What was promised? State the exact promise-content claim if one exists.
- What was said, published, or instituted? Identify the speech-act Work, each description/publication object, and each institutional effect separately under its subject pattern.
- What governance or permission-looking claim exists? State either a generic D prescription with its exact normative source and applicability, an individual D claim about an exact obtaining commitment with its actual bearer and institution basis, or the selected
A6-AW-*claim in its own quadrant. State responsibility separately under its admitted domain predicate or return its exact missing governor. - What happened, what followed, and what supports reliance? State dated Work, each current result/change/delivery/acceptance claim, and each A.10 evidence claim separately; omit absent claims.
When those answers need stable reuse, decision, audit, dispute, or cross-face projection, write them in the one A.6.B Claim Register: one atomic statement, direct object, exact subject assertion, non-semantic pattern locator, and quadrant per row. Otherwise stop with the repaired atomic prose. Faces cite reused claim IDs or canonical locations; they do not create another bundle record.