A.6.REL:4.2 - Apply the receiving-use test

Here receiving use is ordinary wording. First state the readable relation and ask what later work must distinguish. If occurrence identity is needed, name the exact receiving object: an assertion or description episteme under C.2.1, a direct relation that uses the occurrence as a world-side participant, or an assertion episteme stating that one already identified operation application binds the occurrence as the actual value of a named A.6.1 argument. Any acting system, enacted method, and performed work remain separately governed.

1. Name the direct relation kind and participants in a readable sentence. Use only the direct relation-participant meanings, obtaining predicate, and applicability needed to state that sentence accurately; do not yet require a RelationSignature, SlotSpecs, occurrence designator, representation correspondence, or the complete occurrence-identity rule.
2. Immediately ask: Will later work need to tell this occurrence from another occurrence of the same relation, including another episode with the same participants?
3. Apply the observable contrast. A current report that only says Robot-7 is assigned as inspector through InspectionAssignment-17 answers no. A history or comparison that must distinguish a second occurrence of the same direct species from the first, despite the same participant values, answers yes.
4. If no, keep the readable direct sentence and stop this pattern. Do not create a relation-occurrence description episteme for completeness.
5. If yes, recover the participant meanings, applicability, and obtaining predicate from the subject pattern. Inspect the relevant world facts or constituting history in the current case and judge whether they satisfy that test. Only when the current-case facts satisfy the predicate is there an obtaining occurrence to individuate. Otherwise keep the result as a C.2.1 claim under the exact direct predicate; use A.6.P only while the predicate or participants remain unclear. A claim-bearing episteme records the exact claim family and polarity; evidence and reliance stay with their direct governors.
6. Recover and apply the subject pattern’s same-versus-new-occurrence rule. Explicitly individuate one occurrence; assign an identifier only when stable reference is needed.
7. Only now name the exact receiving object and subject pattern. Designate the occurrence in a receiving assertion or description episteme; for a receiving direct relation, verify its obtaining with that occurrence as a participant; or, for an already identified operation application, verify the named A.6.1 ArgumentDeclaration, designation rule, ValueKind, cardinality, and binding predicate before an assertion episteme states that the occurrence is its actual bound argument value.

Occurrence existence depends on the direct relation obtaining. Reidentification and distinction from another occurrence depend on the direct identity rule. Explicit individuation depends on a named receiving use. Identifier assignment and reference use depend on an already recoverable occurrence. None of the later moves makes the earlier relation obtain.