A.6.RSIG:4 - Solution

A.6.RSIG:4.1 - Recognition-cue discipline and non-goals

A.6.RSIG governs description-recognition signatures in general: the first-contact cue structure by which one reader can recover what encountered description is live, what carrier or projection exposed it, what it applies to, what excludes it, and which definitionEpistemeRef identifies its defining U.Episteme. Reject a nearby reading or wrong defining U.Episteme only when it passes F.19’s grounded-guard test: the rejected reading has an independent local ground, is plausible for the intended reader, and changes truth, understanding, selection, safety, stop, reliance, or action. Use the smallest clear correction; do not invent an alternative to fill the cue shape.

Here “description-recognition signature” is a lower-case authoring and reading discipline, not by itself a typed U.Signature or a new formal kind. A typed declaration requires the applicable neighboring pattern’s explicit conditions.

The encountered carrier or projection may help recognition; it does not become authoritative merely by being encountered.

Use definitionEpistemeRef for the defining U.Episteme. If the definition is available only through one publication, cite separately the exact E.24.PUB publication occurrence that makes it available; the publication, projection, or carrier does not become the defining episteme merely because it exposed the definition to the reader.

A.6.RSIG does not govern:

• general information architecture or search UX;
• documentation layout or publication-face selection;
• pattern-entry discoverability across a pattern language;
• the full semantics of the description itself;
• lexical repair, alias acceptance, or naming governance as such;
• graph ontology, workflow sequencing, or runtime route semantics.

A.6.RSIG:4.2 - Two-level description-recognition shape

Reader-visible minimum. For ordinary reader-facing use, the minimum is not a card. One or two sentences may be enough if they make recoverable:

1. what this description is for;
2. when it applies;
3. when it does not apply;
4. which definitionEpistemeRef applies;
5. what nearby false reading or wrong defining U.Episteme to reject, when the grounded-guard condition in §4.1 holds.

Review-expanded shape, only when needed. When a recognition cue affects a decision or is being reviewed, use the expanded recoverability shape:

description_seen
encountered_carrier_or_projection
reader_viewpoint
case_signal_or_access_condition
applies_to
excludes
expected_first_recognition_gain
first_admissible_entry_stop_or_reroute
definitionEpistemeRef
projection_role_if_any
nearby_false_description_or_wrong_definition_episteme

The nearby_false_description_or_wrong_definition_episteme field is optional: use it only when the grounded-guard condition in §4.1 holds.

This shape is a review aid, not a mandatory form for every encountered description. It exists to keep description, carrier, projection, and definitionEpistemeRef from collapsing into one overloaded publication label or projection label.

A.6.RSIG:4.2.1 - Minimal local repair and review sequence

Use this sequence when authoring or reviewing one recognition-signature repair:

1. Name the description_seen and the reader viewpoint in one concrete first sentence.
2. Name the encountered carrier or projection if confusing it with authority is a live risk.
3. State what the description applies to and what excludes it.
4. Name the defining U.Episteme to inspect first.
5. When the grounded-guard condition in §4.1 holds, name the nearby false description or wrong defining U.Episteme to reject.
6. State the first admissible entry stop or neighboring-pattern application.
7. If that stop cannot be stated without A.6.B claim routing, publication-face law, lexical repair, or cross-pattern comparison, apply the appropriate neighboring pattern instead of stretching A.6.RSIG.

Minimal admissible output:

• one first-contact recognition statement the reader can use immediately;
• one explicit defining U.Episteme;
• an explicit false-neighbor rejection when the grounded-guard condition in §4.1 holds;
• one admissible entry stop or reroute.

A.6.RSIG:4.3 - Parent cases

A.6.RSIG keeps the main parent cases explicit:

• boundary-description recognition: can one reader recover what one boundary-presented description is for before the reader needs to classify its claims as L/A/D/E;
• method-description applicability recognition: can one reader recover whether one method description is the right description to inspect, reject, or compare for the reader’s question;
• interface/access-description recognition: can one reader recover the right access or interface description without confusing it with promise, execution, or downstream effect semantics;
• pattern-local recognition-signature case: can one reader recover one pattern opening as the right first description to inspect before broader pattern-language comparison begins.

A.6.RSIG:4.4 - Neighbor boundaries

Neighbor boundaries remain explicit:

• use A.6.B when the reader needs to classify the boundary claims as L/A/D/E;
• E.17.0 tests viewpoint/view membership; E.17 publishes reader-facing forms of an already accepted engineering account; use E.24.PUB when publication occurrence, form, or carrier identity affects the recognition use;
• E.10.D2 recovers description-episteme and specification-use distinctions; use E.10 cues within F.19 for wording, A.6.P for under-specified direct relations, and F.18 for durable naming and its collision checks;
• C.16.Q repairs overloaded recognition or discoverability quality wording; C.25 applies when the quality-family claim depends on several differently typed contributors; a single-Characteristic claim stays with its direct Characteristic pattern;
• the relevant authoritative pattern body governs pattern semantics when the encountered description is one pattern-local opening.

The four-part split for pattern-local recognition is:

A.6.RSIG:4.5 - When a neighboring pattern is needed

If the task requires a quality claim, typed signature declaration, reusable description, or publication-face rule, use the neighboring pattern that governs that object or claim, including its evidence requirements. The recognition cue alone does not establish that result.