A.6.P:5 - Archetypal Grounding

A.6.P:5.1 - Physical assembly and repeated occurrences

Tell. A maintenance note says replacement bearing is linked to Pump_P.

Show the ordinary repair. Recover physical bearing Bearing_B, pump Pump_P, and interval Interval_T independently. The readable candidate claim is Bearing_B is part of Pump_P during Interval_T. Select the intended direct parthood reading under A.14 and its applicable subject rule. Where that predicate and the case facts already settle the receiving question, state the assertion and stop; an installation history or occurrence identifier is not required merely to report current parthood.

Show the identity-dependent stop. A reliability analysis needs to distinguish the installed-part relation before removal from that after reinstallation. Current A.14 does not define an InstalledPart relation kind, its participant meanings, obtaining predicate, applicability, or same-versus-new-occurrence rule. Return A.6.RCD missing-governor for that proposed relation, naming Bearing_B, Pump_P, the relevant intervals, and the reliability comparison. Removal and reinstallation alone do not establish two occurrences. A.6.REL explains how to apply a supplied identity rule; it does not supply this missing rule.

Conditional continuation. If a direct installed-part definition is accepted, apply its obtaining and same-versus-new-occurrence rules to the case facts. Distinguish two occurrences only when that rule and those facts warrant them; add stable designations or occurrence descriptions only when the receiving use needs them. For repeated typed reuse, an InstalledPartRelationSignature may then declare InstalledPartSlot and AssemblyWholeSlot under A.6.5. Until that definition exists, these names remain hypothetical declaration candidates, as in A.6.REL:5.2 and A.6.5:5.2.

If the adopted construction rule makes installation Work constitutive, identify that independently admitted Work and its declared identity contribution. Database rows, diagram edges, assertions, and declaration components retain their own identities and do not supply the obtaining or recurrence rule. When a mathematical representation is used, state its C.29 correspondence separately. A separate relator is needed only if the direct ontology identifies and justifies it.

A.6.P:5.2 - Clinical evidence use and negative reliance

Tell. A care note says the measurement supports the dose change.

Show. The repair distinguishes the measurement work occurrence, its measurement-result episteme, the work-plan claim, the measured characteristic, the applicable range, and the exact evidence relation. C.16 governs measurement construction and applicability; A.10 governs whether that episteme bears on the named dose-change claim for this use. The broad predicate is not replaced by a universal support relation.

Show the boundary. If current evidence refutes the dose-change assertion or leaves reliance unresolved, the receiving evaluation records that posture. It does not create a negative world-side measurement, treatment, or evidence occurrence. A fresh publication of the same measurement-result episteme changes availability, not the measured condition or evidence relation by itself.

A.6.P:5.3 - Episteme correspondence and representation

Tell. Two teams say the models are aligned, and one tool draws an edge between their model nodes.

Show — models. Model epistemes DesignModel_E and MaintenanceModel_E have EntityOfConcern PumpAssembly_P204 and effective reference schemes CAD-Part-Scheme-v7 and Asset-Register-Scheme-2026Q2, respectively. AlignmentEdge_17 joins nodes labelled BRG-6204 and bearing-4471.

Structure decision. No established model-use structure changes either label’s reading or whether replacement approval may use the pairing. Add no BoundedModelUseStructure; a diagram boundary is not evidence.

Needed sentence. For bearing-replacement planning on PumpAssembly_P204, CAD-Part-Scheme-v7 label BRG-6204 and Asset-Register-Scheme-2026Q2 label bearing-4471 denote the same installed bearing. This is a candidate claim, not yet a fact.

Edge boundary. Under C.29, AlignmentEdge_17 represents that sentence. It does not make the sentence true, prove one referent, or identify a Bridge occurrence.

Adjacent reading. Record ninety-seven percent of endpoint pairs passed the mapping test with C.16. If approval relies on that measurement, A.10 governs the evidence relation. The percentage does not establish the needed sentence.

Result. A.6.RCD missing-governor: bearing-replacement approval is blocked; participants are BRG-6204 and bearing-4471; the needed sentence is above; the edge remains a representation. No current direct correspondence or Bridge pattern states when the cross-scheme claim holds. A future direct pattern must state its predicate, conditions, and, if occurrences must be distinguished, identity rule. Until then, do not assert the models are aligned or mint a Bridge from the edge or a Card.

Show the boundary. The graph edge and its endpoint positions remain representation elements. An explicit C.29 correspondence states which assertion content, participants, and direct relation the edge represents. The edge does not make the correspondence obtain, prove same EntityOfConcern, or individuate a relation occurrence. Shared labels likewise establish neither same world-side referent nor substitutability.

When the claim is that both model epistemes concern the same world-side holon, recover each episteme’s exact EntityOfConcern or grounding designation plus the observations, trajectory, or identity evidence governed for that holon. A Bridge preserves stated correspondences and losses; it does not prove the common world-side referent.

Show the viewpoint-conformance use. A review must decide whether model episteme E conforms to maintenance viewpoint episteme P. Identify E from its claim content, EntityOfConcern, and effective reference scheme, and resolve P as one claim-bearing viewpoint edition before reading a diagram, field, or reference as ontology. Then apply the direct predicate governed by E.17.0: EpistemeViewpointConformanceRelation(E,P). Plainly, E conforms to this exact viewpoint.

For unchanged E and P, the pair <E,P> determines one positive occurrence. Selecting P for this review is a separate use qualification: selection neither makes conformance obtain nor enters occurrence identity. If another review selects P2, test <E,P2> instead of retagging E. A viewpointRef or diagram label does not identify either participant by itself. A query, transformation, or projection may supply construction history for E, but neither that history nor an assertion, evaluation, representation, or publication makes conformance obtain.

Add an occurrence designator only if the next decision must distinguish two conformance occurrences. Add an evaluation result or evidence path only if the reader must rely on the conformance verdict. Add construction history only if the task asks how E was produced; add a representation or publication only if another reader must inspect or receive it; add associated Work only if the task asks who performed which activity. Otherwise add none of these objects. A.6.P stops after recovering E, P, and the direct relation; E.17.0 governs the predicate and, if the use separately asks whether an episteme is a U.View, that recognition.

A.6.P:5.4 - Method, Work, system-role objects, and agency

The sentence the inspection method checks Pump_P may remain ordinary metonymy under F.19. For a separate claim about actual inspection history, recover the following exact case. The source basis says that admitted System_S has the A.13 core for inspection: it is independently classified under local kind InspectorSystemRole and holds obtaining InspectionAssignment-17 of declared MaintenanceInspectionAssignment species for the stated scope and window. A.15.1 then independently admits InspectionWork_W and its enactsMethod(InspectionWork_W, InspectionMethod_M) relation; the examination relation separately connects the Work to Pump_P. Because this worked account expressly states under which assignment the inspection was performed, F.6 then establishes performedUnderAssignment(InspectionWork_W, InspectionAssignment-17) and checks the already recovered performer against the holder. If that F.6 relation were unsupported, the Work would remain and only its assignment-bound attribution would be unresolved. Taxonomy episteme and reference scheme may interpret the assertion but are not assignment participants. System_S performs InspectionWork_W.

A.6.P:5.5 - Formal reduced case

3 < 5 is assertion content in mathematical notation. The numeral occurrences, comparison sign, and operand places are representation elements under C.29. An explicit correspondence can relate them to the values, direct less-than predicate, and any compatible declaration used for typed reuse. No receiving use here distinguishes one obtaining occurrence from another, so the engineer stops at the assertion. A graph edge, tuple, or statement reifier introduced by a tool represents the proposition or assertion; it does not constitute the direct relation.