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.