A.7:5.8a - Same or near-same EntityOfConcern across descriptions and views
Different descriptions, views, viewpoints, publication units, or role-method-interest positions may concern the same EntityOfConcern, different entities of concern, or an unresolved candidate set. A.7 does not accept sameness by publication title, view label, carrier continuity, shared ordinary name, or common reader interest.
Use this split when the text needs to say whether two descriptions or views are about the same thing:
| Case | A.7 relation case | Admissible move |
|---|---|---|
| same referent by value | the localized EntityOfConcern or relation named by value, carried by the current claim, or selected by a reference case and the resolved entityOfConcernRef, where live, refer to the same item by declared reference discipline | same-entity work inside the declared use |
| preserved by viewing | A.6.3 viewing preserves the exact EntityOfConcern while producing another episteme whose claim content or effective ReferenceScheme may differ; any representation relation and any viewpoint selected for a named describing use remain separate | same-EntityOfConcern Description, Specification, or view transformation |
| publication-unit primary only | a bounded publication unit states what it is mainly about, plus its carried move and outside-work boundary, without establishing a claim-bearing episteme trace by itself | publication-unit stability only |
| bridge-conditional semantic reuse | An F.9 Bridge obtains between two exact local senses, and a separate affirmative bounded-use claim names the proposed use, direction, correspondence rule, tolerated loss, and polarity. A practitioner may first use F.18 to settle the governed value’s designations and, only when a durable term row is needed, then use F.17 to constitute that row; neither step establishes the Bridge or licenses reuse, while publication, evidence, and any reliance judgement remain separate. | bridge-scoped semantic reuse only; no entity-identity conclusion follows |
| retargeted under invariant | A.6.4 identifies an exact arrow r between epistemes with different EntitiesOfConcern. A separate C.2.1 bounded-use assertion q about exact r states the invariant, visible loss, named receiving use, conditions, and affirmative or negative polarity. A separate current-case judgement compares exact facts with q’s conditions and proposition and returns satisfies, fails, or cannot decide; cannot decide names the missing fact and reopen condition. | retargeted use only after an affirmative q for the named use receives a separate satisfies judgement; otherwise retain the exact result, including the missing fact and reopen condition for cannot decide |
| unresolved candidate | construction/reference/bridge/witness trace is insufficient | candidate tracking, question framing, or non-use |
| different entity | the applicable identity or reference rule and the available facts establish that the two descriptions concern distinct entities | keep the established difference; a missing sameness or reuse path alone leaves identity unresolved |
When a sameness, difference, or reuse claim needs mathematical justification, use the defining mathematical rule; use C.29 only for an actual lens. E.18 and E.18.1 govern their transformation-flow and problem-to-work carry-through claims, and E.18 applies when a gate crossing is the live relation. A structural, graph, flow, or architecture-description comparison uses its relevant architecture pattern. If no rule supplies the needed identity, correspondence, or postulate-theory justification, leave that claim unresolved.