A.7:5.9 - Direct Description account and specification-use boundary (normative)

A.7 uses no Describe_EoC_DescEp function. To say that one episteme describes something:

1. identify the Description episteme through its complete C.2.1 claim content, exact EntityOfConcern, and effective ReferenceScheme;
2. state the claims it makes about that EntityOfConcern in ordinary language;
3. when the receiving use asks how those claims arose or are carried, name the exact authoring, measurement, observation, model, source-use, representation, refinement, or other direct relation and its participants; and
4. keep any publication occurrence, form, face, carrier, evidence use, Work, or specification-use gate separate.

If the EntityOfConcern is itself an episteme, the new Description does not automatically copy, preserve, refine, or extend its claims. Any representation, source-use, comparison, refinement, or loss claim needs its own direct rule. If the EntityOfConcern is a system, structure, Method, Work occurrence, physical object, characteristic, relation, or other non-episteme, claims are likewise not “inside” it waiting to be copied; the actual measurement, observation, model, postulate, authoring, or other relation explains the claim when that explanation is current.

Example. PumpPerformanceDescription-e4 is a C.2.1 episteme whose EntityOfConcern is pump P-12 and whose claims state the measured flow and pressure under the named scheme. MeasurementRun-88 produced ObservationEpisteme-88, and that observation supports the stated measurement claim through its direct evidence-use relation. The Description, pump, measurement Work, observation episteme, evidence use, and publication carrier remain different objects. No universal constructor is needed.

A Description episteme becomes usable as a specification when its C.2.1 constitution, checkable claims, and a named harness, validation, conformance, measurement, or evaluation relation capable of checking them for the stated use are recoverable under E.10.D2 and the applicable direct pattern. When viewpoint selection affects reliance, preserve or explicitly update the named describing use and its selected viewpoint. Formality, acceptance conditions, measurement criteria, and verification practice contribute under their own rules; formal notation alone is insufficient. Specification use remains separate from the EntityOfConcern, Description identity, publication expression, and Work.

A Description episteme, its specification-use status, and a publication result are distinct from the dated activity that produces them. An actual describing, formalizing, specifying, or publishing activity may be admitted separately as Work. Use B.1.5 for Method composition, A.15.1 for Work occurrences and temporal parts, B.1.4 for aggregation of already established temporal relations, and B.1.6 for resource spend and yields tied to that Work. An ordinary statement about authoring needs those relations only when its claim uses them.