A.7.1:4 - Solution

A.7.1:4.1 - Retain the complete application boundary

This A.7.1 U.MethodDescription episteme narrows the method claims stated by C.19.2 for consequence-guided ontology analysis. When applying A.7.1, retain the declared use, problem-facing result, claimed guarantee, horizon, useful threshold, and separation among the MethodDescription episteme, described Method, reader, A.13-qualified performing System, independently admitted dated Work, and result. For an actual-Work claim, retain the separately declared assignment species and obtaining occurrence used by A.13; add F.6 attribution through that same occurrence only when the receiving analysis use expressly consumes that precise assignment-bound attribution. A missing or failed F.6 relation leaves the Work intact. This wording adds no relation occurrence between the described Methods.

The normal short path uses the already selected A.7.1 analysis method as its one current apparatus. It begins from one exact engineering subject, exact subject predicate, and the pattern description locating that predicate; subject and predicate are inputs and constraints, not apparatus candidates. Use C.18 only when the team must generate or reframe alternative analysis methods, models, formalisms, or other direct-kind apparatuses for the same declared use. Use C.11 only when two or more already-available apparatuses are eligible for that same use and guarantee, making a real local-choice question current. After selection, use the planning Method described in A.15.2 and identify dated Work under the predicate defined in A.15.1; C.24 enters only for tool-call enactment planning.

A.7.1:4.2 - Start from the defeated consequence

Name five things in ordinary domain language:

1. the affected engineering result and its required guarantee;
2. the smallest claim whose current reading fails or is disputed;
3. the observed consequence failure, subject-pattern invariant, or grounded counterexample;
4. at least one candidate correction or a request to recover one; and
5. the action that must remain blocked until the distinction is settled.

One defeated reading is enough. Recovering or constructing an alternative can be part of the work.

A.7.1:4.3 - Enter one of four diagnostic loci

The four loci are a named diagnostic set; they are not a mandatory sequence.

1. Domain inquiry. Ask whether the relevant behaviors, interventions, evidence, and consequences are known. If not, return domain, measurement, or evidence work without ontology invention.
2. Wording use. Ask whether one term or sentence obscures distinct claims. Use C.2.P or E.10 only when wording precision is the live blocker.
3. Working typed account. Test whether direct kinds, participant positions, relation direction, temporal qualification, evidence relation, and occurrence identity suffice for the use. Reuse the direct relation, local system-role-kind, system-role-assignment, state, capability, Method, Work, responsibility, and evidence patterns already in FPF.
4. Subject-specific constructive ground. Return to the exact subject construction only when action, identity, dependence, obtaining, constitution, or decision-changing CT2R loss differs across constructions. Use the direct relation-occurrence, local system-role-kind, direct U.SystemRoleAssignment species, system-recognition, Work-occurrence, state or capability, responsibility, or structural-construction pattern. Do not default to C.13 or a generic constructive calculus.

A.7.1:4.4 - Perform only consequence-changing ontology work

1. Select the first locus capable of resolving the delta.
2. Have the admitted system perform the required domain, wording, typing, evidence, or construction work.
3. Use exact A.7.CP claim IDs through ClaimUsedAsReasoningBasisRelation@Context only when those claims are load-bearing in the work. Do not traverse the compact by default.
4. Preserve direct evidence, currentness, source-use, kind-admission, and subject-construction patterns.
5. Return the repaired result immediately when the next action is truthful at the declared guarantee.

The method result uses one of these closed local dispositions in its result episteme: repairedEngineeringStatement, methodChoice, actionSelected, noOntologyIntervention, returnToDirectOwner, or unresolvedWithBlocker. These are method-result dispositions, not new U-kinds. Each names the affected use, practical result or blocked claim, and stop/reopen condition.

A.7.1:4.5 - Decide whether the working account is enough

A working account is sufficient when admitted direct kinds and relations determine the next move and plausible constructional alternatives do not change the result or guarantee. Stop without declaring the alternatives false. Do not create an occurrence ledger, evidence apparatus, publication package, or ontology record whose distinctions cannot change the use.

Create a durable ontology result only when reuse, dispute, high consequence, automation, or cross-pattern change makes persistence valuable. If the work exposes a missing distinction that must persist, submit the candidate for E.24 admission. A return that relies on the newly admitted distinction requires a positive admission result; otherwise return the exact missing governor or blocked claim without presuming admission.

A.7.1:4.6 - Reopen and teach without premature structure admission

Reopen on a consequential counterexample, changed guarantee, failed use, projection loss, changed occurrence identity, or a newly admitted subject-pattern distinction. Reopen only the affected engineering and ontology decisions.

A short domain, wording, typed-account, or constructive-ground presentation may remain an ordinary explanation or, when persistence matters, a C.2.1 episteme about the question and proposed alternatives. A reusable CGUS requires one identified A.22 structure, local locus bindings, selected relations and applied constraints, and at least two potential continuations; its present-case continuation results remain separate.