A.6.RCD:4 - Solution

Name the blocked receiving claim and participants. Reuse a current direct predicate when it can state that claim. Derive only what the selected substrate warrants. Publish reusable predicate semantics only for repeated use. Admit a relation kind only with its direct obtaining and occurrence-identity laws. Stop when the receiving use works.

A.6.RCD:4.1 - Execute the demand-first method

1. Name the blocked use. State the exact claim, check, decision, or continuation that cannot proceed, and what answer would close it.
2. Recover participants and direct relations. Use A.6.P to name the actual participant referents under their relation-participant meanings and retrieve the smallest plausible base from the exact pattern content or declaration that defines each base predicate and its obtaining law. Similar tokens, shared field names, or adjacent graph edges are not a base.
3. Choose the least constructor admitted by the current substrate. State the constructor semantics and the base claim content it consumes. Do not infer an operator from punctuation or notation.
4. Replay three things. Test one positive case, one discriminating failure case, and the named receiving use. Keep hidden intermediates, polarity, scope, time, and base-definition editions visible when they change the result.
5. Select the lightest disposition. Choose exactly one of the four dispositions in section 4.3 and stop at its stopping rule.
6. Open reusable semantics only when repeated use needs the same rule. First decide whether every reuse concerns one exact subject or the parameterized rule is reused across several subject instances. For one subject, identify a subject-bounded compound-law episteme whose exact EntityOfConcern is that subject and state the reuse limit. For a rule reused across subject instances, identify the exact reusable predicate definition as EntityOfConcern; that episteme may satisfy A.6.0 U.Signature membership before any relation kind is admitted, but it is not a RelationSignature.
7. Open kind admission only when occurrence semantics are consumed. A derived kind needs a direct subject settlement with obtaining, applicability, base dependencies, and a non-optional occurrence-identity rule. A primitive candidate additionally carries the failed derivation, the exact action-facing distinction lost, its own obtaining and recurrence laws, independent receiving uses, and a standalone subject-pattern obligation.

Use this compact working note only while the decision is live:

A.6.RCD working note:
  blockedReceivingUse:
  participantMeanings:
  candidateBaseRelationClaims:
  selectedSubstrateAndEdition:
  constructorSemantics:
  positiveCase:
  discriminatingFailureCase:
  receivingUseReplay:
  disposition:
  predicateDefinitionModeIfCurrent: subjectBounded | reusableAcrossSubjects
  predicateDefinitionEntityOfConcernIfCurrent:
  subjectBoundReuseBoundaryIfCurrent:
  directSubjectSettlementIfKindCurrent:
  stopOrReturn:

The note is a pattern-local prompt. A filled, claim-bearing use is an episteme under C.2.1; the printed shape is not a new record kind, RelationSignature, relation kind, or relation occurrence.

A.6.RCD:4.2 - Respect substrate authority

A constructor probe is usable only when the selected substrate defines its inputs, output claim, applicability, and relevant laws. The following table is a non-exhaustive set of recurring single-substrate semantic probes. It is neither a universal operator registry nor a claim that any substrate supports the whole list.

Cross-algebra claim-use boundary. Ask how the named decision or work occurrence actually uses each result. For every consumed result, state its own obtaining premise-use, reference-use, decision-use, or other direct use relation under the pattern for that question. If the decision is one actual application of a declared operation, an exact A.6.1 argument binding may state that use instead. If no current predicate definition, applicability condition, or occurrence rule can state the required result-use relation for those participants, return missing-governor; if the governor exists and the available case basis is sufficient to apply its positive test but that test fails, return factually unsupported; if a fact needed to decide the test is unavailable, return missing-information. Co-publication, a shared topic, or one decision record supplies no use relation.

Stop there when those independent uses close the named decision or work question. Open a separate joint predicate only when the decision genuinely depends on a joint condition that the independent use relations cannot express; then name that condition and use A.6.RCD to derive exactly it. Do not add a generic joint-use relation or record merely because one decision cites results from two algebras.

When a consumed result relies on an obtaining F.9 Bridge between two exact F.17 SchemeSenseCell values, cite that Bridge and the separate bounded-use claim; add CL or a loss note only when the receiving use needs it. When the result instead crosses exact ReferencePlanes, cite the applicable plane relation and policy. If both facts are current, state both under their own predicates. A cell or plane difference alone creates neither relation, and one branch never fabricates the other. A Bridge-related penalty is current only when an actual named B.3 assurance claim uses an applicable declared domain model, calibrated mappings where needed, stated dependencies and assumptions, and current case facts whose rule yields that penalty. It affects only the calculated assurance result for that named use; it supplies no default fold and changes no independently stated characteristic.

A local compound claim needs recoverable constructor semantics, but it does not need a separately materialized substrate document. Authors MUST name and pin the substrate when the derivation is nontrivial, intended for interoperability, used as proof, or becomes a reusable predicate definition. If no current substrate supplies the proposed operator, return a missing-substrate blocker rather than improvising a universal constructor algebra.

A.6.RCD:4.3 - Select one of four dispositions

These are economy dispositions, not maturity stages. Later need can reopen a local claim or definition. The four dispositions do not impose a required maturity ladder on any application.

A.6.RCD:4.4 - Keep kinds, predicates, claims, and occurrences distinct

Keep the order visible: the admitted relation kind classifies; its direct predicate defines the test; current case facts or constituting history determine whether that test is satisfied, failed, or still open; a claim-bearing episteme states an affirmative, negative, or exact rule-qualified modal claim; and an obtaining world-side occurrence exists only in a satisfied affirmative case. Apply section 0.1 when the test or its factual basis cannot yet produce a result. Use A.6.REL for explicit occurrence individuation only when a named use consumes identity.

A.6.RCD:4.5 - Settle a reusable predicate definition truthfully

When the same rule is used more than once, first ask where the reuse actually travels.

• One exact subject. If every use asks about the same promise-content edition, subject structure, decision occurrence, or other exact subject, identify a subject-bounded compound-law episteme whose EntityOfConcern is that subject. State plainly that the rule may be reused only for claims about that subject; a familiar formula does not make it portable to another subject.
• Across subject instances. If the same parameterized rule is applied to several independently identified subjects, identify one reusable predicate-definition episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the exact predicate definition itself. If its claim graph supplies the subject and value range, Vocabulary, Laws, and Applicability required by A.6.0, the already identified episteme may satisfy U.Signature membership without relation-kind admission. It remains a predicate-definition declaration, not a RelationSignature or a classifier of occurrences.

In either branch, the definition content states:

• parameter and participant meanings;
• the exact base-relation claims and the pattern content or declarations that define their predicates and obtaining laws;
• the derivation rule under the selected substrate;
• polarity, scope, time, and applicability;
• base-definition and substrate dependencies plus their editions when current;
• positive and discriminating cases;
• the admissible claim use and the non-admissible occurrence or ontology overread.

If neither the exact subject nor the exact reusable predicate definition is the truthful EntityOfConcern, keep the needed results as local compound claims. Do not manufacture a union concern or alternate opportunistically between the rule and a nearby domain subject.

A.6.RCD:4.5a - Reusable rule-content predicates stop before relation-kind admission

RuleContentBasisFindingDefinition@R7 is the disposition-3 declaration for two repeated cross-subject predicate semantics: derivedUsingRuleContent(dependentContent, baseContent) and evaluatedAgainstRuleContent(dependentContent, baseContent). Its exact EntityOfConcern is that reusable predicate definition. Its SubjectKind and RangedValueKind are both U.ClaimGraph; predicate obtaining is asserted through C.2.1, so no separate result kind is introduced. The declaration may satisfy ordinary A.6.0 U.Signature membership. It is not a RelationSignature, relation kind, relation occurrence, registry, or claim that every definition or constraint was actually used.

Use the first predicate only when an identified derivation claim names the exact nonempty base subgraph as a formal premise under a declared inference rule or application producing the exact dependent content. Use the second only when an identified criterion-selection claim selects that base for an exact bounded evaluation claim concerning the dependent content. The dependent and base values are predicate parameters, not A.6.5 SlotSpecs. Actual-use assertions remain ordinary C.2.1 epistemes; consultation, influence, provenance, evidence, evaluation Work, and later sufficiency remain separate.

This reusable declaration does not replace the cheaper branches. A subject-local assertion that names its defining or constraining ClaimGraph and closes the receiving use stops at disposition 1 or 2. Open the R7 definition only where repeated cross-subject semantics are actually reused; open a basis analysis only for a named comparison, replay, conflict, or reliance use. No accepted use currently needs an obtaining relation occurrence between rule content and dependent content as a participant or comparison object, so the relation-kind continuation remains closed.

A.6.RCD:4.6 - Prepare derived or primitive relation-kind admission only with occurrence semantics

When a named use consumes occurrence semantics, A.6.RCD yields a relation-kind candidate and the settlement material needed for admission: a derived-kind candidate plus its proposed direct subject settlement, or a primitive-kind candidate plus its candidate standalone subject pattern. Apply the admission predicates defined in E.24 and E.24.UK, and the parsimony predicate in A.11 when that question is current. Neither a proposed settlement nor a candidate pattern locator admits the kind. For a candidate that is admitted, the resulting direct subject settlement states:

1. the classified relation occurrences and exact participant meanings;
2. the obtaining predicate and applicability;
3. for a derived kind, the exact derivation law and base-definition dependencies;
4. a direct occurrence-identity rule that distinguishes repetition;
5. recurrence, cessation, and continuation conditions when those distinctions matter;
6. at least one named receiving use that consumes occurrence semantics;
7. the standalone subject pattern.

An admitted relation kind never has identity intentionally absent. Ordinary use can omit explicit individuation, occurrence records, and designators because no named use consumes them; the direct identity rule still exists.

A pure converse preserves one base occurrence only when the direct subject ontology explicitly says that inverse wording concerns the same occurrence. Restriction, projection, composition, closure, aggregation, and hidden intermediates require an explicit identity decision. Their syntax does not decide whether the derived occurrence inherits one base identity, is constituted as a composite occurrence, or has a new direct identity rule. If no truthful rule is available, remain at local-claim or predicate-definition level.

Before relation-kind admission, authors MAY ask A.6.0 whether a genuinely reusable predicate-definition episteme satisfies ordinary U.Signature membership. That declaration’s EntityOfConcern is the exact predicate definition, not a candidate relation kind, and the result neither classifies occurrences nor admits a kind.

Authors MAY publish under A.6.0 a RelationSignature whose EntityOfConcern is an exact relation kind only after that kind is admitted. The RelationSignature declares reusable SlotSpecs and restates the direct laws; it does not admit the kind or make an occurrence obtain.

A.6.RCD:4.7 - Separate recognition from assurance

Recognition branch for ordinary receiving use. Ask only:

1. What receiving claim or action is blocked?
2. Who or what are the exact participants, and under which meanings?
3. Does one current direct predicate already state the needed affirmative, negative, or exact rule-qualified modal claim?
4. If not, what smallest substrate-admitted compound claim answers it?
5. Which of the four dispositions lets the receiving use proceed now?

The ordinary branch can stop at a readable direct claim or one readable compound claim. It does not require a named substrate document, predicate-definition publication, new relation kind, signature, explicit occurrence, or designator when the receiving use consumes none of them.

Negative direct-claim case. A staffing check asks whether Robot_7 holds CellInspectorAssignment, a declared direct species of U.SystemRoleAssignment for InspectorSystemRole, in Cell_3 during Interval_T. The current A.2.1 participant meanings and the direct species predicate state the positive test over the actual holder system, cell, and interval; a taxonomy or scheme is not an assignment participant. If an applicable non-assignment criterion or complete assignment closure basis exists and the available facts satisfy it, one claim-bearing episteme states the negative result and disposition 1 closes the check; there is no obtaining assignment occurrence to individuate. If no current direct-species predicate, applicability condition, or needed occurrence rule exists, return missing-governor. If the governor exists and the available case basis is sufficient to apply the positive test but it fails, return factually unsupported; if a fact needed to decide the test is unavailable, return missing-information. Neither a failed positive test nor either blocker is a third assignment polarity.

Assurance branch for DPF and FPF authors. DPF and FPF authors use this branch whenever they author a compound claim, reusable predicate definition, or relation-kind admission candidate, including a durable local compound claim that stops at disposition 2. In addition, verify:

• exact base patterns, definitions, editions, and applicability;
• selected substrate and constructor semantics;
• positive case, discriminating failure case, and receiving-use replay;
• one truthful definition EntityOfConcern when reusable semantics are published;
• dependency and currentness conditions;
• direct occurrence-identity and recurrence rules for every admitted relation kind;
• representation correspondence without representation-to-world collapse;
• naming only after the exact definition episteme, kind, or occurrence is settled;
• evidence relations under A.10, assurance results under B.3, gate results under A.21, and decision results under C.11 or the pattern whose Solution answers the exact decision claim.

Passing the assurance branch does not make evidence constitutive of relation obtaining. It makes the derivation and admission decision replayable for the declared use.

A.6.RCD:4.8 - Stop and return deliberately

Stop at the first disposition that closes the named receiving use. Use this pattern when:

• a relied-on base relation or predicate definition changes;
• the selected substrate edition or constructor semantics changes;
• applicability, polarity, participant meaning, scope, time, or hidden-intermediate policy changes;
• the derivation becomes unreadable, computationally unsuitable, or unable to interoperate for the declared use;
• repeated consumers begin to need one reusable definition or stable occurrence identity;
• a purported primitive gains an accepted lossless derivation, or a derived kind loses a truthful identity rule.

G.11 supplies currentness, dependency closure, and scoped refresh when a relied-on base definition, substrate edition, or applicability settlement changes. Re-evaluate only affected claims and dependent kinds; do not rebuild a global relation registry.