B.1.5:4.2 - Test The Composite-Method Qualification
First identify the exact candidate Method under A.3.1 from its reusable action, participant meanings, applicability, preconditions, intended result or preserved condition, bounds, and failure or stop conditions. If that Method cannot yet be identified, require A.3.1. B.1.5 then tests whether already identified part Methods and exact whole-forming facts justify calling that same candidate a composite Method; it does not create the candidate’s Method identity.
State each whole-forming fact in ordinary domain language before choosing its representational or ontological disposition. The words serial, parallel, guarded, iterative, fallback, adapter, and join do not settle the claim by themselves.
| Composition cue | What the current claim must let a practitioner decide |
|---|---|
| serial | which earlier and later Methods participate in which whole, and which accepted result or preserved condition of the earlier Method must satisfy which precondition of the later Method before continuation |
| parallel | which branch Methods may proceed without a mutual order, the independence condition, and the exact join condition that must hold before the whole continues |
| guarded choice | which alternative Method is selected, the exact selection condition, what happens when no guard or several guards hold, and which whole contains that choice |
| iteration | which part Method repeats, what establishes another iteration, and the exact stop or failure condition |
| refinement or substitution | which Method may replace which other Method, for which use, and which whole semantics, joins, and exposed interactions must remain invariant |
| fallback or dispatch | which primary and alternative Methods are involved, the exact trigger for using the alternative, and whether the statement belongs to this whole or only to a selector registry |
| adapter or typed join | which exact adapter U.Method, upstream result meaning, downstream precondition, conversion condition, and failure route make the join admissible |
Before using a first–then or vertical list as Method architecture, make both checks.
- Preserve real order. Ask what must finish or become true before another Method can start or continue. Name the Methods, the required result or condition, any join or adapter, and the failure or stop route. Keep a genuine first–then result as an unfolding or order claim; its position does not make it a subject level.
- Test simultaneous contribution. Choose one bounded Work situation and ask whether several Methods contribute during it without all of them falling into one before-after chain. One Work whole may enact several Methods through separate A.15.1 relations. Alternatively, separately identified Work occurrences may overlap while enacting different Methods. State the Work identities and relations that actually obtain. Co-occurrence alone establishes no Method part, composite Method, Work part, or level.
Both answers may be true. A Method can contain a real ordered segment while other Methods contribute during the same broader Work. The source’s reading order and the fact that several Methods are used together decide neither which Methods are parts of one whole nor whether any level exists.
Then use A.6.RCD. Reuse an existing direct predicate when one already governs the needed claim. Otherwise stop at a local compound claim when it closes this use, or publish a reusable predicate-definition episteme when several uses need the same rule. Continue to a relation-kind candidate only when a named receiver needs stable occurrence semantics that claim content cannot supply; E.24 and E.24.UK decide admission. A label such as precedesInMethod is readable claim language, not admission evidence, and an ordinary composition claim needs no invented occurrence.
Keep definition, signature, kind, and edition distinct. A predicate-definition episteme may independently satisfy ordinary A.6.0 U.Signature membership. It is not a RelationSignature; that specialization opens only for an admitted relation kind. Changed predicate-definition or signature content identifies another episteme under C.2.1. Treat and connect the two epistemes as editions through EpistemeEditionRelation only when C.2.1’s historical-continuation test passes: exact source use and the applicable continuation rule identify which claim, EntityOfConcern, and scheme features must be preserved or may deliberately change, and the current facts satisfy that rule. Revision or supersession Work, Method, provenance, and change facts are evidence for this test; no label establishes continuity. Otherwise the later episteme is a non-continuing replacement. The changed content triggers review of dependent claims; it does not by itself prove another relation kind or relation occurrence. If a relation kind is independently admitted, its direct pattern or declaration defines applicability and occurrence identity, while current case facts establish obtaining, continuation, or cessation where relevant.
When several admitted order occurrences must be reviewed together, use B.1.4’s OrderSpec, exact ordered-relation designations, and join or independence conditions in a separate bounded-use aggregation record. The record and optional Gamma_ctx notation neither participate in Method identity nor make any relation obtain. When the order statements remain local claims rather than admitted relation occurrences, compare those claim contents directly and do not pretend that an OrderSpec has occurrences to aggregate.
The composite-method qualification holds only when the candidate Method also has its own reusable semantic action, generic participant meanings, applicability, preconditions, intended effects or preserved conditions, invariants, bounds, accepted inputs and outputs, failure and stop conditions, and interface decisions. Its identity includes the exact part Methods and construction architecture on which those semantics depend. Cite an effective reference scheme or claim scope only when its variation changes a Method meaning or the use of a claim about that Method; neither is a generic container.
State the reidentification rule with the qualification. The same exact candidate continues through only those parameter changes, reorderings, or part substitutions that its A.3.1 identity rule already permits while preserving the whole action, applicability, preconditions, intended result or preserved condition, bounds, required joins, and interface boundary. A change outside those permitted variations identifies another U.Method. Use B.2 when a separate higher-level reidentification or emergence claim is current; a B.2 label is not needed to state an ordinary B.1.5 rule.