A.6.H:2 - Problem

Without an exact-object discipline, the following failures recur:

1. Candidate-whole ambiguity. “The whole system” is asserted before one candidate entity, boundary, or identity rule is recoverable.
2. Reference-level drift. One noun phrase alternates among a referent, a claim-bearing episteme, a publication form or carrier, intended Work, performed Work, and evidence.
3. Parthood overload. Physical components, conceptual constituents, collection members, measured portions, and temporal restrictions are written as one generic inclusion.
4. Order-as-structure. A method factor, step description, plan item, or performed occurrence is treated as a component because a diagram places it inside a box.
5. History-as-parthood. A v2, revision, edition, shift, retry, or monitoring window is routed through PhaseOf before episteme identity or Work-temporal law is applied.
6. Construction-by-list. A list of objects, repeated trace, or selected diagram is treated as proof that one whole or direct relation obtains.
7. Coverage-as-wholeness. “Complete”, “turnkey”, or “end-to-end” is treated as a whole-level property without a scope, covered items, direct coverage or completion predicate, or current Work state.
8. Integrity collapse. A measured characteristic, security or data-integrity term, evidence report, assurance claim, and structural-whole claim are all forced through mereology.
9. Change-by-vocabulary. Generic verbs such as recompose, rephase, or recomplete replace the exact changed object and direct changed relation.

The practical failure is non-decidability: another reader cannot tell which object is at issue, what relation is claimed, what evidence would bear on it, or which stronger use is blocked.