A.7.CP:5 - Archetypal Grounding

Relation-occurrence inquiry. Ontology-analysis work returns SupportOccurrenceInquiryDecision-17: the receiving claim requires an occurrence distinction, but the applicable subject rule does not yet establish whether removal and reinstallation identify one occurrence or two. The result relies on A7CP-01 and A7CP-10 to keep the represented relation, its obtaining, occurrence identity, and currentness separate; it returns the missing subject rule instead of inventing that rule. Two reasoning-basis occurrences name the same work and receiving result but different basis claims. The other ten claims stay latent.

Role/chart reconciliation. Reconciliation work returns AssignmentConstitutionDecision-42, which distinguishes assignment constitution from a chart that evidences the assignment. Four result-specific relation occurrences connect that decision to A7CP-01, A7CP-03, A7CP-05, and A7CP-06. Source-use and evidence relations stay under their subject patterns.

Same-work selective reopen. ReasoningWork-19 returns WarrantyClaimAnalysis-19 and AlternativeOntologyComparison-19. Each has its own relation occurrence to A7CP-10. The warranty analysis uses that exact compact claim as an adopted premise. The comparison uses the same claim only as a conditional assumption in a named branch that separates temporal qualification, occurrence identity, and currentness. If the comparison later adopts that separation as an accepted basis, its changed posture and revised result receive a later reasoning-basis occurrence. Reopen the comparison result and its dependents; the unchanged warranty-analysis result and premise-use occurrence remain closed.

No compact use. Missing telemetry blocks a state claim while the relevant state and evidence distinctions are already clear. Work returns to measurement/evidence. No compact claim is load-bearing, so no reasoning-basis occurrence is created.