A.6.H:4 - Solution · fpf.tools

A.6.H:4 - Solution

A.6.H:4.1 - Entry and result contract

Enter with:

one exact sentence or decision that depends on wholeness-family wording;
the concrete candidate objects recovered under A.6.P:4.11;
the receiving use that would change if the wording were read differently; and
any already known definition, constraint, or test and its PatternID locator when that reference must travel.

Return one of:

one or more readable direct claims, each naming the predicate or claim family, ordered participants, material qualification, and the PatternID locator when its defining or testing content must be cited;
one concrete next action for a still-current measurement, evidence-use, episteme, publication, Method, plan, Work, production, or completion question: apply the named rule when its entry holds, or stop when no such question remains; or
an A.6.RCD missing-governor[...] result naming the exact participants, proposed predicate, affected use, and absent definition, applicability, or occurrence-identity rule. Name a future pattern or declaration need only when one is actually identifiable.

When evidence cannot yet select among several readings, keep the candidate objects, discriminating questions, and blocked receiving use explicit in ordinary prose. An ordinary shared note may hold the alternatives, keeping each separately recoverable. A note, table, list, or trace does not by its presence establish a whole, relation occurrence, identity, coverage, assurance result, or new kind.

A.6.H:4.2 - Apply the exact-object sequence

Use the following sequence only as far as the current sentence requires:

Recover the working question. State what a reader must decide, do, accept, measure, rely on, start, continue, or stop. The cue word selects no branch.
Name the subject and reference level. Distinguish the referent entity, claim-bearing episteme, publication occurrence, publication form, presentation carrier, Method, MethodDescription, WorkPlan, performed Work, and evidence carrier. Keep only the subjects current in this case.
Recover a candidate whole only for an actual whole claim. Identify the candidate individual, its direct identity pattern, relevant boundary or delimitation, environment, and at least one interaction, dependency, or constraint across that boundary when the use needs it.
Identify the alleged parts independently. A label, location, list, graph node, file section, timestamp, or common name does not by itself establish the claimed parthood. Recover each component, constituent, entity said to belong to a collection, portion, temporal restriction, Method factor, Work part, or other object using the rule that defines or tests that claim.
State every direct relation occurrence separately. Name exact participants and test the direct predicate. A relation obtains neither because the whole was recognized nor because a trace, view, or record lists it.
Add construction or selected structure only when the receiving use consumes it. C.13 may report already recovered parts, relations, constraints, and a construction rule. A.22 may identify one selected structure when its selection basis and identity discriminators are current. Neither creates the direct facts.
Recognize or reidentify the whole only when that question is current. Use A.1 for holon recognition and B.2 for a remaining whole-reidentification question after direct existing-whole explanations have been tested. A changed adjective or part list alone decides neither.
Separate coverage, completion, and performed Work. Name what is covered, under which scope and criterion, by which exact relation, and whether the claim concerns a MethodDescription, capability, plan, Work occurrence, production result, evidence set, or another subject. Apply A.15.1/A.15.PROD or the rule for that exact subject; do not treat a plan as performed Work.
Stop after unpacking. State each recovered whole, relation, characteristic, Work, evidence use, or verdict directly. Apply another named rule only when one exact question remains and its entry holds; otherwise stop with the completed claims or exact blocker.

A.6.H:4.3 - Classify `integrity` by the claim it carries

The word integrity never chooses mereology by itself.

Current sentence	First exact objects	Governing exit	Blocked overread
“Structural integrity is measured at X.”	bearer, integrity Characteristic, Scale or coordinate, Unit when needed, measurement method, result, evidence pointer, and time stance	`C.16.P`, then `C.16` and the exact measurement pattern	Do not invent a candidate whole, boundary, parts, or `PhaseOf` merely because the Characteristic is named integrity.
“This report supports the integrity claim.”	exact claim, evidence-bearing episteme or carrier, evidence-use relation, relying use, limitations, and currentness when required	`A.10`; `B.3` only when an assurance claim is current	A report title, provenance link, or measured value is neither assurance nor a whole.
“The assembled pump remains an integral whole.”	exact pump, direct identity rule, boundary, independently identified parts, direct assembly or parthood relations, any current selected structure, and the whole-recognition or reidentification question	`A.14`, `C.13`, `A.22`, `A.1`, or `B.2` as selected by the actual claim	The adjective integral, a BoM, or an assembly record does not establish the whole or relations.
“Data integrity” or another defined term of art	exact bearer, defined Characteristic or constraint, threat/assumption or qualification basis, and receiving use	the characteristic, constraint, security, measurement, or evaluation pattern	Do not reinterpret the term as structural wholeness unless the sentence separately makes that claim.

If the source leaves these readings genuinely open, preserve the alternatives and block the named use until evidence discriminates them.

A.6.H:4.4 - Select the direct relation, not a generic part edge

Intended claim	Required test and subject pattern	Typical non-inference
Physical or structural component	Identify both entities, the direct `ComponentOf` predicate, boundary relevance, and obtaining facts under `A.14`/the structural pattern.	Diagram containment or removal from a list does not establish component parthood.
Conceptual or content constituent	Identify the exact episteme or publication-unit whole and the exact constituent under `A.14`. Keep the described referent separate.	A section in a file is not therefore a component of the described system.
Measured portion	Name the whole, portion, extensive measure μ, compatible unit, additivity/non-overlap rule, and boundary under `A.14`.	A percentage, share, or smaller numeral does not make a structural component.
Collection belonging	Name the collection, its identity rule, the entity said to belong, and the collection’s own rule for when belonging begins and ends.	Belonging alone is not transitive parthood and does not make an acting collective system; neither does it prohibit a separately grounded part relation.
Proper temporal restriction of an enduring individual	Apply the subject’s direct identity rule, then use `PhaseOf(x,y)` only when `x` is the same exact `y` restricted to a proper interval. Ordinary restrictions may nest or overlap. Coverage and non-overlap apply only to a separately selected exhaustive partition under A.14.	A timestamp, state label, or changed property alone does not create a phase object.
Distinct episteme history	Compare C.2.1 claim content, EntityOfConcern, and effective ReferenceScheme. When a discriminator changes, identify another episteme; assert `EpistemeEditionRelation` only when its independent historical-continuation predicate obtains.	`v2`, filename, shared title, provenance, publication order, revision Work, or source use establishes neither identity nor continuity.
Performed Work interval, episode, part, retry, resumption, or later occurrence	Use A.15.1 `TemporalPartOf_work`, `EpisodeOf_work`, `OperationalPartOf_work`, another admitted Work-part relation, or a separately identified Work occurrence according to its exact predicate.	A shift, phase, step, log row, or MethodDescription section never routes Work through generic `PhaseOf`.
Method factor, order, branch, or join	Identify exact Methods and method-composition claims under `A.3.1`/`B.1.5`; use B.1.4 only for a bounded aggregation of already recovered order relations.	A box, sequence position, description constituent, plan item, or Work part is not a Method part by appearance.

A.6.H:4.5 - Unpack `complete`, `turnkey`, and `end-to-end`

Ask what the next reader may do because the claim is supposedly complete.

Candidate reading	What must be named	Direct return
Complete whole or assembly	candidate whole, identity, boundary, required parts, direct relations, construction rule when current, and completion predicate	`A.1`, `A.14`, `C.13`, `A.22`, or the exact construction/completion pattern
Specification coverage	exact claim-bearing episteme, described EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme, required content or criterion set, coverage predicate, scope, and gaps	`C.2.1` and the exact coverage/evaluation pattern; `A.3.2` only when the episteme is classified or used as a MethodDescription under its membership rule
Capability coverage	exact holder, capabilities, required actions or conditions, scope, and direct coverage criterion	`A.2.2` and the exact capability/coverage pattern
Work coverage or completion	exact Work occurrence(s), temporal extent, performed parts or episodes when needed, completion or production predicate, acceptance boundary, and evidence	`A.15.1`, `A.15.PROD`, or the exact completion/acceptance pattern
Evidence coverage	exact claim set, evidence-bearing objects, evidence-use relations, scope, limitations, and relying use	`A.10`; `B.3` only for an assurance claim
End-to-end method or workflow	exact Methods, method parts and joins, exposed interactions, failure and stop conditions; performed runs remain separate	`A.3.1` and `B.1.5`, with A.15.1 for actual Work

A sentence may require several rows. Write several direct claims; an ordinary note may hold them when each remains separately recoverable.

A.6.H:4.6 - Use wording as a cue, not as ontology

The following recurring expressions are useful review cues:

whole, entire, integrated, coherent, holistic — ask whether there is an actual candidate whole, a measurement or assurance claim, or only rhetoric;
part, piece, component, module, element, subsystem, includes, contains, comprises — recover the object and direct relation rather than accepting the noun;
phase, version, revision, edition, lifecycle — apply the direct identity pattern before any history label;
complete, turnkey, end-to-end, fully specified — recover the exact coverage or completion claim;
pipeline, workflow, process, step, stage — distinguish Method, MethodDescription, WorkPlan, performed Work, order relation, and publication representation;
collection, group, team, set — distinguish who or what belongs under the collection’s own rule, an acting system, system-role assignments, and a selected collection structure;
context, environment, discipline as a whole — name the actual bounded context, episteme family, community, organization, or other subject before making a boundary or nesting claim.

When a cue occurs inside a defined term of art, retain the definition and its PatternID locator when needed. Open A.6.H only if the sentence also makes an unresolved whole, part, structure, coverage, or completion claim.

A.6.H:4.7 - Describe change through the object that changed

When a wholeness-looking story changes, name the exact object and direct relation:

for a different boundary or interaction claim, state the changed object and apply the applicable boundary or delimitation rule;
for an added, removed, or differently related item, test the parthood, collection’s own belongs-to, portion, or selected-structure claim;
for changed episteme content, EntityOfConcern, or effective ReferenceScheme, compare C.2.1 identity and test edition continuity separately;
for a different publication form, occurrence, or carrier, state that publication or carrier claim and apply its rule;
for a changed Method, MethodDescription, WorkPlan, Work history, production result, or completion claim, state that object and apply its rule;
for a changed coverage scope, criterion, evidence set, or assurance use, repair that direct claim rather than inventing a generic completeness status.

Do not substitute a generic change lexicon for those objects and predicates. A readable verb is welcome when the exact direct claim remains recoverable.

A.6.H:4.8 - Guardrails

No situation record, card, bundle, adjective, table, graph, or trace is the whole or direct relation by presence.
No generic partOf closes a load-bearing claim when a direct relation kind or subject pattern is required.
No order, plan, or Work history is structural parthood by position.
No claim that an entity belongs to a collection is upgraded to component assembly or acting-system identity.
No cross-boundary flow or influence is treated as a part merely because it crosses the boundary.
No integrity reading is selected before the bearer, claim, and receiving use are known.
No plan, description, or publication is treated as performed Work.
No version, revision, edition, phase, filename, or provenance label decides identity or continuity.
No construction trace or selected structure creates its listed parts or relations.
No coverage statement becomes assurance, acceptance, readiness, or completion beyond its exact predicate and evidence.