A.6.H:5 - Archetypal Grounding

A.6.H:5.1 - Assembled pump

Source sentence: “After seal replacement, the assembled pump remains an integral whole.”

1. The subject is PumpUnit-37, not the maintenance record, drawing, or seal-replacement Work.
2. The pump’s direct identity rule decides whether the same individual continued.
3. The current use names the pump boundary, impeller, casing, replacement seal, and the exact assembly or parthood relations on which operation depends.
4. If the decision consumes one selected organization of those relations, A.22 governs that structure; if it consumes a construction account, C.13 reports already recovered facts.
5. A.1 recognizes the candidate whole; B.2 opens only if the replacement leaves a genuine whole-reidentification question.
6. For calibration, seal replacement, and inspection, identify any actual Work under A.15.1 and state any claimed change separately under the rule for the changed object.

A.6.H:5.2 - Laboratory pipeline

Source sentence: “The whole chromatography pipeline is turnkey, and the chemist owns the whole thing.”

The repair separates the following claims and unresolved questions; turnkey and owns still need the receiving decision and discriminating facts:

• the reusable procedure is one exact Method or composite Method under A.3.1/B.1.5, with exact joins and exposed interactions;
• its procedure document is a separate U.MethodDescription episteme under C.2.1/A.3.2;
• “turnkey” becomes the exact specification, capability, Work, or evidence coverage claim needed by the receiving use;
• treat owns as a local wording cue. First state the decision that depends on it and the exact proposed sentence. Candidate readings include, for example, property or title, possession or custody, operational control, decision authority, stewardship or responsibility, assignment, commitment, and permission; they have different participants and predicates. Apply the direct rule when one exists, or return A.6.RCD missing-governor[...] naming the participants, proposed predicate, affected use, and absent definition; and
• an actual laboratory run is dated Work under A.15.1.

Thus “the laboratory owns the instrument,” “the chemist has custody during the run,” “the chemist may authorize disposal,” and “the chemist is responsible for calibration” are four different claims. None follows from belonging to the team, classification, assignment, commitment, or permission merely by form.

No one claim is a component relation merely because the source uses pipeline or whole.

A.6.H:5.3 - Paper, proof, and revision

Source sentence: “Section 3 is part of the proof, and v2 is part of v1.”

• Recover whether Section 3 is a constituent of the paper episteme, a publication-unit constituent, or a described proof step. Keep those subjects separate.
• Recover argument order under its subject pattern rather than as physical containment.
• Compare the exact C.2.1 triples for the two labelled epistemes. Changed claim content identifies two epistemes. Assert EpistemeEditionRelation(E_v1,E_v2) only when its historical-continuation predicate obtains.
• If one unchanged episteme is needed only during a proper interval, PhaseOf(E@τ,E) may state that restriction. It does not connect v1 to v2.
• Keep any drafting, review, or publication Work separate from publication occurrences and from the two epistemes that participate in EpistemeEditionRelation.

A.6.H:5.4 - Integrity measurement and assurance

Source sentence: “The structural integrity score is 0.82, so the system is assured.”

First recover the bearer, integrity Characteristic, Scale, measurement method, result episteme, evidence, and time stance under C.16.P/C.16. For “the system is assured”, name the exact target claim and assurance use before applying B.3; then recover the evidence-use relation, scope, limitations, and relying context. The score alone does not establish that assurance result.