A.6.RCD:4.3 - Select one of four dispositions
| Disposition | Test | Result | Stop |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Existing exact predicate | One current exact ClaimGraph already supplies the participant meanings, obtaining predicate, applicability, and claim family needed by the use. | State the readable affirmative, negative, or exact modal claim in a claim-bearing episteme under that predicate, retaining the source pattern only as a locator. Current case facts or constituting history supply its factual basis. If no needed predicate, applicability condition, or occurrence rule exists, 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. State a negative only under an applicable non-obtaining criterion or complete closure basis whose facts are satisfied. | Stop. Do not derive a synonym predicate or duplicate relation kind. Only when an adequately grounded affirmative case satisfies the predicate is there an obtaining occurrence; use A.6.REL only when a named use consumes that occurrence’s identity. |
| 2. Local compound relation-bearing claim | A substrate-admitted composition of current base predicates closes this one receiving use, and no repeated definition or occurrence semantics is needed. | Put positive or negative compound claim content in one identified C.2.1 episteme. An information-sufficiency or reliance assessment stays with the evaluation or evidence pattern and uses the blocker boundary in section 0.1; it is not a third predicate value. | Stop. Introduce no relation kind, RelationSignature, or U.Relation occurrence. |
| 3. Reusable predicate semantics, with derived-kind continuation only when needed | Several uses need the same parameterized rule. If they all concern one exact subject, the rule is subject-bounded; if the rule is reused across subject instances, it is a genuinely reusable predicate definition. | Publish one C.2.1 episteme with the truthful branch-specific EntityOfConcern: the exact subject for a subject-bounded compound law, or the exact reusable predicate definition for cross-subject reuse. The latter may independently satisfy A.6.0 U.Signature membership. If a receiving use also needs stable relation-occurrence semantics, return a derived-kind candidate plus its proposed direct subject settlement and handle that candidate under E.24 and E.24.UK, and to A.11 when parsimony is current. | Stop at the selected definition unless occurrence semantics are named and the proposed settlement is supplied. A definition is not a kind. A.6.0 membership does not make it a RelationSignature; only an admitted relation kind opens that specialization. |
| 4. Primitive relation kind | Every accepted derivation loses one exact action-facing distinction, and the candidate has independent receiving uses plus its own obtaining, recurrence, applicability, and occurrence-identity laws. | Carry the candidate to A.11, E.24, and E.24.UK, and author a standalone direct subject pattern. | Stop or block if the failed derivation, lost distinction, independent use, direct pattern, or identity law is absent. A convenient name never passes this test. |
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.