B.2.4:4 - Solution
Use B.2.4 as a decision bridge from direct capability and functioning facts to B.2 whole reidentification. Add no generic slice, context placeholder, candidate-bearer list, or second B.2 record.
B.2.4:4.1 - Start From Exact Facts, Claims, And Support
- Name the exact existing whole and its direct identity or reidentification rule.
- Identify each exact capability envelope, obtaining functioning relation, or selected in-life transformation-flow structure under its subject pattern. Keep method, method description, work plan, work occurrence, module allocation, characteristic, and architecture facts separate when they are current.
- State the exact claim made about those facts. Name evidence or measurement only as a separate relation that supports, challenges, or leaves that claim unresolved.
- Perform B.2’s ordinary existing-whole comparison. Better measurement, component improvement, Method or Work repair, allocation repair, or architecture-view repair can leave the same whole in place.
- If a residual whole-reidentification question remains, use B.2 for it. B.2 then identifies one exact candidate new whole, applies the complete A.1 and kind-specific criteria, and compares that candidate with the existing whole.
B.2.4 adds no result species. If a receiving use needs a durable account, use B.2’s optional C.2.1 epistemes; their content neither creates the direct facts nor selects the new whole.
B.2.4:4.2 - Subject-Pattern Test
Before applying B.2, test whether the exact facts are already explained under a subject pattern:
| Exact fact or claim under concern | Subject pattern if sufficient | B.2.4 remains current only when |
|---|---|---|
| Capability envelope | A.2.2 for the capability of an exact System holder, C.16 for measured characteristics; A.10 only for evidence use | the exact envelope and holder facts leave a candidate-whole question that the existing whole cannot explain |
| Function or functioning relation | A.6.F recovers the exact claim and its direct subject pattern; A.3.4 for an actual transformation and C.16 for a measured characteristic | the obtaining relation and whole-level facts leave a residual new-whole question |
| Transformation-flow structure | E.18 for the selected structure, A.3.4 for actual transformations, C.30.TFS-REL for bounded architecture use; C.29 only for a mathematical representation use | the selected in-life structure changes which whole can carry the current claim |
| Method relation or method family | A.3.1 for Method identity, B.1.5 for composition, A.15 for role–Method–Work alignment, and G.5 for registry or selector-facing use; use the direct pattern for any separately claimed family relation and C.29 only when a lens is used | the exact method facts change the whole, not merely the way of doing |
| Method description or procedure text | A.3.2 and C.2.1 distinguish the MethodDescription and its episteme identity; use E.17 or E.24.PUB for a current publication occurrence, form, or carrier, C.2.P for unresolved source-expression or source-to-use wording, and A.10 or G.6 only when evidence provenance is relied on | an in-life whole-reidentification question remains after the description is separated |
| Work plan or work occurrence | A.15.2, A.15.1 | exact planned or performed work facts leave a new-whole question; the plan or occurrence is not the whole by label |
| Module, component, or bearer allocation | The direct allocation or parthood pattern; A.6.M for unresolved module/interface wording; C.30, A.22 or C.30.ASV only for the corresponding claim | exact allocation and architecture facts defeat the existing-whole explanation |
| Metric, score, threshold, robustness, or quality claim | C.16, A.19; A.10 only for evidence use | the underlying characteristic facts, not the score or support record alone, defeat that explanation |
B.2.4:4.3 - Existing-Whole Explanation
Perform B.2’s ordinary existing-whole comparison before claiming whole reidentification. Materialize its optional ExistingWholeExplanationResult only when another use must inspect or cite the outcome.
Subject-pattern explanations that often stop B.2.4 include:
- better measurement or benchmark normalization;
- improved component capability;
- corrected function-like wording;
- a clearer method relation or method family selection;
- a new method description without corresponding in-life capability or work facts;
- better work coordination inside the same whole;
- module allocation repair;
- architecture-view or transformation-flow-structure repair;
- better evidence, measurement, or source currentness for an unchanged world-side claim.
If one of these explanations is sufficient, finish B.2.4 by retaining the existing whole and continue with the subject pattern.
B.2.4:4.4 - When B.2.4 Requires B.2
Use B.2 when the exact direct facts show that the existing whole cannot carry the current subject claim and an exact candidate new whole must be tested. Examples:
- a production cell has an exact capability envelope, obtaining coordination and functioning relations, a selected in-life transformation-flow structure, and external commitments that cannot be explained by individual machines or the old aggregate;
- a service platform has an obtaining functioning relation and external commitments that cannot be assigned to one service or module;
- exact coordination and work facts concerning a team, a toolchain, and the enacted Methods from a method family make a result-system candidate live; or
- a candidate episteme has exact constitution and explanatory-use facts that leave an episteme whole-reidentification question.
After the return, use B.2 for the existing-whole/new-whole comparison, its one exact candidate, and any optional record. B.2.4 adds no result record or evidence slice. The direct patterns still define and test the contributing facts, while evidence or measurement supports the associated claims.