A.6.F:10 - Rationale

Function-like wording is too useful to ban and too overloaded to leave unresolved. The smallest useful repair is not a new ontology or a generic record. Name the exact entity, value, claim, or claim-bearing episteme, apply its subject pattern, and state the remaining use. Add an explanatory rejected reading only under the full F.19:4 test.

This design follows A.6.P: recover the direct relation and actual participants when one obtains; add a reusable RelationSignature and declaration-local SlotSpecs only for typed reuse; keep assertion, specification, or view epistemes separate; and keep representation elements under C.29 with explicit correspondence. It also follows C.30: functional architecture is selected structure for a described holon, not a peer of architecture, not a selected transformation-flow structure by default, and not a mathematical graph description by itself.

The pattern keeps ordinary language usable. A phrase can remain Plain when it carries no FPF claim. When it carries an ontological, evidence, causal, assurance, bridge, gate, work, decision, or admissibility claim, the exact object or claim and subject pattern are recoverable. No generic relation, claim, slot, or view record stands in for that result.