A.6.P:4.1 - Recover the objects before choosing relation notation

Start from the claim as written and ground each load-bearing head:

1. Identify the exact referent intended by each participant expression.
2. State the independently admitted kind of each referent using the pattern that admits or constrains that kind.
3. Separate a world-side object from an episteme about it and from a publication or representation of that episteme.
4. Recover metonymy explicitly. The phrase at the table may state physical location or participation in a negotiation meeting. Evidence from the current case selects the direct relation; neither reading by itself establishes a local system-role kind or system-role assignment.
5. Leave the claim unresolved when the current evidence does not select one referent. A more technical synonym is not a repair.

The result of this step is an ordinary sentence containing identifiable objects. It is not a newly minted object kind. When several candidates remain live, use the small working note in A.6.P:4.9.

Copying an expression such as “my left” or “our project” into another participant’s instruction can change its referent. Use A.6.P.RI when the receiving use still needs to establish whose reference is intended, what must remain the same, or which performer is to act. The result is a usable interpretation or instruction, or a specific missing condition. When those references and the task are already clear, use ordinary clarification or the relevant domain transformation; A.6.3.RT governs a needed change of representation scheme while the EntityOfConcern stays the same.

If the material is still a cue and no relation-bearing claim can yet be stated, stay with A.16.1 or B.4.1 instead of forcing relation publication. If the cue has stabilized into an open explanatory question but still has no selected relation answer, use B.5.2.0.

If counter-evidence or a failed use shows that a published relation statement overstates its articulation, closure, or framing, use A.16.2 to reopen, back off, or respecify that publication. A.16.2 records the retreat; A.6.P repairs the relation again only after the engineer can name a grounded candidate relation, its participants, and a discriminating check. Use A.16.0 only when readers must see lineage, branching, loss, or responsibility-transfer history; a local return needs no trajectory account.

A.6.P begins when the available observations or claims let the engineer name at least one grounded candidate relation, its participants, and a discriminating check.