| CC-A7.1 (System, system-role-kind, and behaviour split) | A System acts because it satisfies A.1. A local system-role kind classifies it; an assignment occurrence relates it to that kind only when the direct assignment predicate obtains. Method, Capability, Work, transformation, kind, and assignment keep their separate meanings. | Accept ordinary actor wording when the System and contribution are recoverable; add classification, assignment, Capability, Method, or Work only for the stronger current claim. |
| CC‑A7.2 (Transformer-system-role assignment domain) | A suffixed source designation such as TransformerSystemRole@ValveSelectionContext is only a locator. The exact kind must first be recovered through its C.3 candidate domain, membership distinction, boundary probes, and continuity rule; the suffix identifies none of them. A direct U.SystemRoleAssignment species must then admit that kind in its declaration-local kind slot and systems in its holder slot. | Type-check the exact species, holder, kind domain, predicate, applicability, and occurrence identity; do not filter a permissive family value by a role label. |
| CC-A7.3 (Episteme non-agency) | An episteme does not act or hold a work-facing assignment. A System may author, revise, use, or publish it. | The ordinary sentence names the acting System; add exact Work, carrier, publication, evidence, source, or assignment relations only when the receiving claim uses them. |
| CC‑A7.4 (MethodDescription ≠ Method ≠ Capability ≠ Work) | MethodDescription is the same independently identified C.2.1 episteme only when its exact EntityOfConcern is one admitted Method and at least one substantive way-of-doing claim obtains; Method, Capability, and Work retain their separate meanings. Form, label, design-time status, authoring, revision, citation, publication, approval, or use time grants no membership. | Identify the episteme triple and apply the A.3.2 threshold; then name each current Method, Capability claim and dated Work occurrence separately. |
| CC-A7.5 (Composition fits its subject) | Use B.1.2 for a system-aggregation decision, B.1.5 for Method composition, A.15.1 for Work occurrences and temporal parts, B.1.4 for aggregation of recovered order or temporal relations, and B.1.6 for Work-resource aggregation. | The claimed result and its required inputs determine the applicable rule; a generic “process” label supplies none of them. |
| CC-A7.6 (Carrier/source-currentness reference) | An evidence-use claim SHALL identify the exact episteme and the claim for which it is used. Cite A.10 carrier/source-currentness refs when the particular evidence, source, or reliance use depends on them. | Recover the episteme and target claim, then the carrier or source-currentness facts required by that use; ordinary citation does not itself assert an evidence-use relation. |
| CC-A7.7 (Formal inclusion, collection, and collective) | Mathematical set, tuple, coordinate, and other formal inclusion stays with its defining mathematical rule and creates no world-side relation. Use C.29 for an actual mathematical lens and A.19 for the relevant characteristic scale or coordinate. A world-side collection uses its own identity and belongs-to rule. A grouping claimed to act must separately pass all six A.1 matters. | Check the distinct formal, collection, and collective-System claims. Infer neither belonging from formal inclusion nor parthood or holonhood from belonging; do not prohibit a separately grounded constructive part claim. |
| CC‑A7.8 (Diagram legend) | Domain “process” or “behaviour” keeps its recovered meaning under the direct rule for that claim. For composition, select the subject’s rule under :5.7; disambiguate an unclear domain use explicitly. | A clear domain sentence may stand; an ambiguous one identifies its actual object and predicate without forcing a Method/Work binary. |
| CC-A7.9 (Progressive actor wording) | A contribution noun may stand for a recoverable System in ordinary prose. An assignment, local system-role kind, Capability, Method, or Work is added only when that exact distinction changes a receiving inference. | The engineer designed the pump may stand. For a precise Work claim, recover the A.13 core and A.15.1 admission basis stated in :2, including the core assignment and at least one Method actually followed. Add F.6 only if the receiving use must also identify the assignment under which that Work was performed. |
| CC-A7.10 (Work-facing chain clarity) | A diagram shows only the positions used by its claim. MethodDescription membership, Capability, assignment, Work, and evidence are not inferred from a complete-looking chain. | Begin with the acting System and direct claim; expand the chain only for a named design, attribution, or reliance use. |
| CC-A7.11 (Terminology hygiene) | Avoid bare actor when the acting subject is known. Name the System directly or use a recognizable contribution noun. | Assignment identity is required only when a work-facing assignment claim is current; ordinary actor wording does not create one. |
| CC‑A7.12 (System-role domain guards) | Work-facing assignment species declare HolderSystemSlot for systems or acting holons and a local system-role-kind domain for AssignedSystemRoleKindSlot. Epistemes may be used through reference-use, constraint-source-use, evidence-use, status-use, source-use, publication-use, requirement-use, definition-use, explanation-use, assurance-use, or gate-use relations, but those uses create neither a system-role kind nor an assignment. | Each assignment names its occurrence and declared species. The species defines participant meanings, predicate, applicability, and occurrence identity; the occurrence supplies holder, assigned kind, case applicability, and extent. Episteme uses name the relation. |
| CC-A7.13 (EntityOfConcern and Description visibility) | Each Description episteme is independently identified by complete claim content, exact EntityOfConcern, and effective ReferenceScheme. A.7 supplies no universal describing constructor. | Text or diagram keeps the EntityOfConcern and Description episteme visible and states any current authoring, measurement, observation, model, source-use, representation, or refinement relation separately. |
| CC-A7.14 (Description-source discipline) | A Description about an episteme does not automatically copy or preserve its claims; a Description about a non-episteme does not extract claims from the subject. | Name the exact source-use, representation, refinement, measurement, observation, model, authoring, or other relation that warrants the claim when that explanation is current. |
| CC-A7.15 (Specification-use boundary) | When text claims specification force for a specification, formal specification, requirement, acceptance item, harnessed invariant, or measurement-criterion object, it retains the independently constituted Description episteme, checkable claims, and a named harness, validation, conformance, measurement, or evaluation relation capable of checking those claims for the stated use. Preserve or explicitly update the named describing use and selected viewpoint when they affect reliance. C.2.3 formality, A.21 gate or acceptance discipline, C.16 measurement criteria, A.6.2 refinement, and other direct patterns may contribute under their own conditions. E.17 expresses an already admitted specification use; E.10 governs its suffix. Neither publication, suffix, nor formal notation substitutes for the admission conjunction. | Recover the episteme, claims and capable checking relation for the stated use, plus any reliance-relevant viewpoint selection. Specification remains a use of the Description episteme, not a peer ontology class. |
| CC-A7.16 (Method and Work separation) | A Description episteme, its specification-use status, and a publication result do not carry the cost or time actuals of the activity producing them. | Recover any separately admitted describing, formalizing, specifying, or publishing Work; keep Method composition, Work histories and temporal parts, and Work resource relations distinct. |
| CC‑A7.17 (Publication face and form discipline) | Publication names use the current publication face, form, unit, carrier, and rendering vocabulary. PlainView, TechCard, InteropCard, and AssuranceLane are faces over epistemes or views; new ...PublicationFace or ...PublicationForm heads are not introduced as A.7 kinds in this ontology. | Token scan shows no ad‑hoc ...PublicationFace or ...PublicationForm kinds. |
| CC‑A7.18 (Semantic and plane crossings). | A face relying on an obtaining F.9 Bridge cites its two exact F.17 local senses, that Bridge, and a separate bounded-use claim; CL is optional. Other semantic relations use their own predicates and participants. Cross-plane content cites the applicable plane relation. Context or plane difference alone creates no Bridge, CL, or penalty; any trust penalty cites the named current policy and its applicability to this use. | Audit resolves the exact semantic or plane relation and any current policy application without inferring one from labels, contexts, planes, cards, or CL. |
| CC-A7.19 (UTS row reference) | When a selected durable naming settlement and the receiving use require an F.17 term row, public names shown on faces SHALL point to that UTS row with twin labels (Tech/Plain), edition pins, and carrier/source-currentness refs when the source or evidence use depends on them. | If the row is needed, recover its identifier, labels, edition pins, and applicable source/evidence refs. Otherwise keep the sufficiently defined local designation; publication alone requires no row. |
| CC-A7.20 (Direct Method reference) | An identifier’s designation of one exact Method under an effective ReferenceScheme and a receiving claim’s resolved methodRef remain separate from U.MethodDescription membership. Neither requires a description hop; methodDescriptionRef is optional and edition-specific only when the receiving claim uses that episteme’s claims. | Resolve the identifier and receiving reference directly to the Method, then apply A.3.2 independently only for an actually cited description episteme. |