A.6.P:4.7 - Name change by the object that actually changes
There is no universal relation-edit operation. First point to the object that the sentence says changed. If the sentence says that the same object continued, use that object’s identity rule to test that claim. If identity-bearing episteme content changed, name the result as another episteme rather than an in-place edit:
| Object named as changed | What the reader does | subject pattern and stop |
|---|---|---|
| obtaining relation occurrence | Ask whether the later event is the same occurrence. Apply the direct relation’s identity rule. For a temporally extended occurrence, record that it began, continued, ceased, or split. If the rule says it is not the same occurrence, name a second occurrence; do not say that the first occurrence became it. | direct relation pattern with A.6.REL |
RelationSignature declaration content | If vocabulary, participant meanings, SlotSpecs, laws, applicability, identity-rule content, EntityOfConcern, or effective reference scheme differs, name the revision Work and its output as another episteme. Test that output anew as a U.Signature. Call the two epistemes editions, refinements, or successors only after the complete direct predicate for that relation is satisfied; otherwise stop at two distinct epistemes. | C.2.1 and A.6.0; A.15.1 for revision Work |
| relational assertion content | If claim content, EntityOfConcern, or effective reference scheme differs, name another assertion episteme. Keep the revision Work, later episteme, retraction or currentness claim, publication, reliance posture, and continuity relation separate. Then test the world-side predicate again; edited text is not evidence that the world-side relation changed. | C.2.1, the direct claim pattern, and A.15.1 for revision Work |
| reliance posture for one declared use | Record reliance as supported, refuted, or unresolved for that use. Do not change assertion polarity or create an occurrence. | A.10 or the receiving evaluation |
| evidence or witness relation | State which evidence-bearing episteme or carrier bears on which claim, then test whether that relation begins, ceases, or is superseded. Record time and freshness through the exact evidence/currentness predicates. | A.10, B.3, or the pattern that defines the direct evidence predicate |
| participant designation in a receiving episteme | If an author substitutes another by-value designation inside the receiving claim, the resulting claim content identifies another episteme. If the same reference value receives another interpretation, state the exact interpretation relation separately. If another reference value replaces the earlier reference value, apply A.6.5’s reference-retargeting rule. Recheck the world-side predicate; A.6.5 reference retargeting is available only when the receiving claim reuses a compatible declared SlotSpec. | C.2.1 and F.18; A.6.5 for the declared reuse |
| occurrence designator | Assign, replace, retire, or interpret a designator only for an already recoverable occurrence. The name does not create or change the occurrence. | F.18 and the effective reference scheme |
| description episteme | If claim graph, EntityOfConcern, or effective reference scheme differs, name another description episteme and the revision Work separately. Assert an edition, refinement, or supersession relation only after its own predicate is satisfied; otherwise stop at two descriptions. | C.2.1; A.15.1 for revision Work |
| publication relation | State that one selected episteme was made available, that its availability ceased, or that another episteme was published. Do not infer a content or world-side change from publication alone. | E.17 and E.24.PUB |
| representation-bearing episteme | If its claim content, EntityOfConcern, or effective reference scheme differs, name another episteme and keep the revision Work separate. Do not infer a represented-world change from that new episteme. | C.2.1; A.15.1 for revision Work |
| representation form or element | First ask: did one mark or form change, or is practical content being re-represented for the same concern under another scheme or reasoning medium? For a mark or form change, name the resulting representation object under that object’s identity rule; do not call it a scheme transition. State a changed C.29 correspondence or lens-use claim separately as another claim-bearing episteme. Ordinary A.6.3.RT use may stop with the target representation, source comparison, preserved content, representation delta, loss, use boundary, and return. When the needed claim makes exact identity material, independently identify source episteme X, receiving episteme Y, their same exact EntityOfConcern and effective schemes, and v : X -> Y with applicability, preservation, loss, and prohibited strengthening. Only when the needed sentence asserts the historical six-participant occurrence also require the selected model-use structure, two scheme-description epistemes, actual Work, direct predicate, applicability, and occurrence-identity rule; a declaration-local SlotKind or a reference record is not enough. If that exact occurrence claim lacks a current predicate, record the established A.6.RCD missing-governor result. None of these changes by itself changes the represented world-side object. | A.6.3.RT for the ordinary note, triggered exact construction, or later-specific occurrence; C.2.1 and C.29 for separate claims; A.6.RCD only for a missing direct occurrence governor |
actual correspondence occurrence, separate from a C.29 claim or representation | A C.29 correspondence claim, Card, edge, or representation does not prove that an occurrence exists. Name the representation element and what it represents, then write the plain correspondence sentence the next task needs. If a current exact ClaimGraph states that predicate and its applicability, test whether it holds. If the task only needs to know whether the correspondence holds, stop there. If it must distinguish two occurrences, use that exact occurrence-identity rule with A.6.REL. If no current predicate source supplies the predicate and identity rule, record the established A.6.RCD missing-governor result while keeping the element, represented object or claim content, and needed sentence visible. A changed representation form, lens-use account, or preservation or loss claim does not by itself change an actual correspondence occurrence. | the pattern that defines the exact correspondence predicate and identity rule, with A.6.REL only when occurrence distinction is required; otherwise A.6.RCD; the separate C.29 representation/correspondence assertion remains distinct |
| claim-bearing lens-use, preservation, or loss-account episteme | If the selected representation, represented object or claim content, LensMappingMode, PreservedStructure, LostStructure, declared lens use, any stated blocked overread, stop or return condition, EntityOfConcern, or effective reference scheme changes the claim content, name another episteme. Recheck the correspondence occurrence and any world-side claim separately. Select any blocked overread through F.19’s plausible-reader test. A changed display form alone does not establish a changed lens-use or loss claim. | C.2.1 and C.29 |
| direct Bridge occurrence | Name the local-sense endpoints and write the Bridge sentence the next task needs. Use only a pattern that states that direct predicate. If the task only needs to know whether the Bridge holds, stop after testing the predicate. If it must distinguish occurrences, use that pattern’s identity rule and say whether one occurrence began, continued, or ceased, or whether another occurrence exists. A new Card, direction statement, CL, loss note, licence, evidence item, or publication does not by itself change the occurrence. | the pattern that states the direct Bridge predicate and identity rule; if none exists, A.6.RCD |
| Bridge description or Bridge Card episteme | If Bridge kind, direction, CL, loss, admitted use, substitution licence, or EntityOfConcern content differs, name another episteme. Keep revision Work, the later episteme, any edition or refinement relation, evidence, and publication separate. Do not report a changed Bridge occurrence unless its predicate or identity rule says so. | C.2.1; F.9 for Bridge-description content |
The object in the first column controls the operation and continuity test. Revision may name an activity family; for an actual revision, recover each exact actual performer through A.13 and let A.15.1 independently admit the dated U.Work. Add F.6 only when the relation-repair use also consumes precise assignment-bound attribution through the same obtaining A.13 assignment; missing or failed F.6 leaves the revision Work intact. The revised episteme is a separate object; performing the revision does not let an identity-bearing episteme change in place. A shared title, sequence, identifier, or authoring intention does not establish an edition, refinement, or supersession relation. If none of the identifying facts for the selected row changed, do not invent a change claim.