A.7:5.4 - Holon vs System vs Episteme (who can act)

• System or acting holon. A System can act because its physical or operational organization satisfies A.1. An ordinary sentence may name the recognizable System by a contribution noun: The engineer designed the pump, The reviewer checked the manuscript, or The service accepted the request. Keep that wording when the System and contribution are recoverable and no receiving inference depends on a local system-role kind or assignment identity.
• System-role kind and assignment, when current. Add a local system-role-kind classification and obtaining assignment when their identity, extent, or participants are used by the claim, including the A.13 core for precise Work admission. State the admitted assignment species when that relation is current. Precise attribution of an already admitted Work to that assignment remains a separate F.6 claim. The assignment and kind do not make the System able to act and do not act themselves.
• Capability, Method, and Work, when current. Name Capability only for an ability or envelope claim, Method only for the way of doing, and Work only for a performed occurrence. An ordinary actor sentence need not materialize all three.
• Episteme. An episteme cannot act. A System may author, revise, use, or publish it; state the actual operation, Work, carrier, publication, evidence, or source relation only when the receiving claim uses that distinction.
• Holon. Use the umbrella word only when systemness is not part of the claim. If action is asserted, the acting entity must satisfy A.1 as a System; an assignment is not the admission test.

Progressive example. The design team selected valve V-12 is enough for an ordinary design account when the team is a recoverable collective System and no later inference needs a precise Work or assignment identity. If an audit claims dated ValveSelectionWork-47, use A.13 to recover DesignTeamSelectionSystem as the actual performer with its core basis, then A.15.1 to admit the Work independently from the occurrence facts in :2, including at least one Method actually followed. If the audit must also identify the assignment under which that Work was performed, use F.6 to check ValveSelectionAssignment-47 and compare its holder with the already identified performer. Keep the core’s admitted assignment species, assigned local kind, extent, and evidence recoverable; add another Method, Capability, or further evidence detail only to the degree used by the audit.