A.6.RSIR:5 - Archetypal Grounding

System case: module interface claim. A team says “the cooling module exposes the heat-exchanger interface.” RSIR first asks what claim is current. If the claim is substitutability or separate change, use A.6.M. If a reusable relation declaration for exchanged-medium and boundary-condition participant meanings is current, use A.6.0 plus A.6.5 for the RelationSignature and complete SlotSpecs. If the current use is a diagram, API schema, or other representation, keep its positions under C.29 or the exact representation pattern and state explicit correspondence. If the claim is a functional port in a transformation-flow structure, use A.6.F, A.3.4, and E.18. RSIR does not create U.Interface.

Bare-role case: API provider wording. A source says “the API role is provider.” Apply E.10.ROLE once. If it recovers a provider System, local ProviderSystemRole kind, assignment, capability, provider Work, promise, access relation, publication, or another direct object, apply that object’s rule and do not apply RSIR. Apply RSIR only when the still-unanswered question is the participant meaning in a direct relation, a reusable declaration, an interface claim, an operation declaration or binding, or an API-schema representation position. For protocol, service-term, SLA, or agreement-like wording that bundles several claims, use A.6.C to unpack the claims before stating each object or relation. Use A.6.M only for a module-interface claim and A.6.B only for boundary-package statement classification. Do not assign a system role to the API description.

Evidence case: reviewer and report wording. A report says “reviewer evidence role approved the gate.” Apply E.10.ROLE once and split the claims. Apply A.2/A.2.1 for any exact reviewer system-role kind or assignment. Use A.10 for evidence reliance on a named claim, B.3 only for an actual named assurance claim, F.10 for an exact status-use relation, E.24.PUB when publication availability is current, and E.17 when the accepted account needs a reader-facing publication form. Use A.21 for the gate decision and A.2.9 for any issuing speech act. None of those recovered branches needs RSIR unless a separate direct-participation, reusable-declaration, interface, operation, or representation-position question remains. No episteme receives a system-role assignment by being evidence.

Slot case: method parameter. A method description says “parameter target controls the model.” The sentence does not identify what target designates or which control relation is claimed. Keep it as reduced-use source wording and recover those missing values before asserting the control claim. A separate positive example illustrates an A.6.1 argument label. In the current recognizeAdmittedHolonCandidate declaration, candidate is an ArgumentDeclaration meaning one exact entity being evaluated, with ValueKind = U.Entity; recognitionJudgment is the declared result meaning. Under A.6.1, the project independently identifies the bounded recognition-evaluation invocation P-37 by that declaration’s application predicate, identity rule, and extent rule. During P-37, Pump #37 is actually bound under candidate, and the returned value unknown is bound under recognitionJudgment. In a call representation such as recognizeAdmittedHolonCandidate(target = Pump-37, ...), the named-argument position target corresponds to the declared candidate meaning but is neither the declaration nor either binding. The practitioner writes: “target is the call label; A.6.1 declares candidate : U.Entity; during exact application P-37, Pump #37 is bound as candidate.” Stop there unless the receiving claim needs the result binding or another subject pattern.

A.6.RSIR:5.1 - Near-Miss Checks