A.6.P.WMR:4.8 - Work-name grounding by morphology and occurrence

An action nominal such as testing, assembly, maintenance, evaluation, or inspection is a morphology cue, not an occurrence identification or recovered kind. Placement in function- or flow-structure prose does not identify a U.Function or any other object by itself. When the use remains function-like and claim-bearing while its exact FPF object or relation is hidden, A.6.F is the next subject pattern. When the object is already recoverable, the label resolves to the exact U.Method, U.MethodDescription, required or desired behavior or effect claim, actual U.Transformation independently grounded under A.3.4, selected TransformationFlowStructure, selected functional U.Structure and its ArchitectureStructuralView, C.2.1 FunctionalElementClaim episteme, FunctionalStructureViewUse, candidate bearer, qualified ability claim about the bearer System under A.2.2, functional-port declaration, allocation or correspondence claim, plan content, performed Work occurrence admitted under U.Work, or another object actually defined by its direct pattern. The view branch cites these separate values; it does not create an individual from the action word. In a WBS element, activity, or Work Package the nominal ordinarily names plan or assignment content about intended work; none of these uses identifies an already performed Work occurrence.

A use that needs only the recovered method, method description, plan, structure, or other already governed value closes under that direct pattern. Only reliance on the label as one performed occurrence handles the candidate designation and required granularity under A.15.1.

For a performed-occurrence question, apply A.15.1 and use only its established result: one exact Work occurrence admitted under U.Work at the granularity needed by the current use, an exact lowering to the neighboring method, description, plan, evidence, telemetry, temporal, or other supported object, or an exact blocker. A materially needed workContinuityPolicyRef remains part of the A.15.1 identity judgment rather than a WMR field. Apply F.18 only after one occurrence is established and needs a durable name.

Any output, result, outcome, production, delivery, or acceptance wording is a separate WMR claim only while its direct relation or claim dimensions remain hidden. Once readable, apply the rule for that relation or claim; it does not become part of work identity.

The preceding action-nominal classification is an FPF-scoped synthesis from recurring morphology-and-subject ambiguity, not a rule imported from PMI, PRINCE2, IDEF0, or IDEF3. A domain may conventionally use an action nominal as the durable name of an already grounded method, plan item, functional-view record, or dated work occurrence; that direct identity and exact predicate win over morphology. The synthesis reopens if repeated practice shows that the cue classifies a directly grounded value under the wrong predicate family, or if a trigger case cannot close through A.6.F, the exact subject predicate, or A.15.1 without new ontology.

Inspection contrast. inspection method names the way of doing. planned Pump-14 inspection work is intended-work content. Pump-14 inspection on 2026-07-15 09:10-09:34 becomes an exact performed occurrence only when applying A.15.1 establishes it at the required granularity; otherwise retain the lowered object or blocker. If the current question is whether the work first constituted an inspection-report episteme, apply A.15.PROD and use its local entity-identity-inception claim or exact branch blocker. A measured or diagnostic result uses its direct result rule, and a pass/fail verdict remains a separately governed evaluation-result episteme rather than the inspected entity or a downstream effect.