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.