| Tell | A practitioner reads “the function”, “functional architecture”, or “this functionality” and needs to know whether the sentence is about capability, effect, method, Work, a system-role kind or assignment, participation, actual functioning, responsibility, module allocation, mathematical relation, quality, or architecture. A.6.F asks for the exact object or claim and its subject pattern before the phrase carries an FPF claim. |
Show: U.System | A robot, software system, plant, product platform, or AI-agent system may have capabilities, required effects, control functions, module allocations, runtime flows, and user-visible functionality. Those are not one FPF object; A.6.F identifies the exact entity, value, claim, episteme, or direct relation current in each use and requires its subject pattern for it. |
Show: U.Episteme — method-description case | An algorithm file is not automatically a method description. It passes the A.3.2 membership test only when one identified claim-bearing episteme has one admitted exact U.Method as its EntityOfConcern and says substantively how that method is done. File form, name, author, citation, approval, or executability alone is the near-miss; stop at the direct representation, publication, form, carrier, or other current pattern. |
Show: U.Episteme — other function-like claims | A functional diagram, modeling-language view, architecture view or note, generated-code architecture note, benchmark report, or mathematical model may cue a claim-bearing episteme; a publication form can express its selected edition and a publication occurrence can make that edition available. Read the claim before the form: use C.30 for architecture and view claims, C.30.ASV for structural-view claims, and the pattern that defines any required representation correspondence; keep a benchmark report as an episteme and publication rather than evidence or a method description, and recover its independently established support relation and basis through A.10 before relying on it, using G.6 when an addressable provenance path is needed; use its subject pattern for a mathematical or formal claim and use C.29 when a mathematical-lens use is current. Neither the episteme, publication occurrence, form, carrier, nor correspondence becomes the function, capability, Work, evidence relation, architecture, or mathematical object by its form. |