A.6.S:3 - Forces

• Stability vs evolution. TargetSignatures must be stable enough to coordinate, yet change as understanding improves.

• Explicitness vs overhead. Unpacking slots/bases/views increases clarity but also increases authoring effort.

• Arrow law vs enacted work. An A.6.2 arrow may state the effect-free relation between source and receiving signature epistemes. An application of the described constructor operation has its own predicate, extent, and identity rule under A.6.1. Claims about a created successor or written carrier identify the changed object and effect; any performed Work is admitted separately. For performed Work, recover each actual performer’s complete A.13 core and let A.15.1 independently admit the occurrence, as in §4.0. Add F.6 only when a later claim expressly consumes precise assignment-bound attribution through the same obtaining A.13 assignment; F.6 checks that exact Work-assignment link and identifies neither the assignment nor the performer. Missing or failed F.6 leaves the Work intact.

• Multi‑view richness vs semantic coherence. Views help stakeholders, but they risk becoming divergent “versions of truth”.

• Local meaning vs cross-local reuse. Signature claim content pins its effective ReferenceScheme where interpretation matters. The local kind and any source-local meaning remain separate values. Use F.9 for an actual semantic Bridge between exact local senses whose <ReferenceScheme, LocalSenseClaim> interpretation bases differ, and judge its bounded-use claim separately. Distinct F.17 cells or a mapping alone do not establish that relation.

• Contract talk vs ontology. “Contract” language invites mixing promises, norms, and invariants; FPF requires quadrant discipline.