B.2.P:4 - Solution

Recover the claim kind and subject pattern before any wording replacement.

B.2.P:4.1 - Emergence Claim-Kind Recovery

Read the complete natural span with F.19 and E.10’s compact cues. If an emergence-specific FPF question remains, recover five things before choosing replacement wording:

1. Practical use. What decision, explanation, design move, or stop depends on the sentence?
2. Exact object. Is the concern an existing whole, candidate new whole, collection, characteristic, capability, functioning relation, structure, transformation, measurement result, assertion, or mathematical expression?
3. Concrete claim. What changed or obtains: construction, identity, capability, characteristic value, evidence, publication, representation, or only the wording?
4. Subject pattern. Which pattern defines or constrains that object and claim without using emergence as a substitute?
5. Disposition. Keep the exact direct claim, open B.2 only for a remaining whole-reidentification question, or stop with the exact missing object or governor.

A temporary author note may retain the source phrase, exact object, subject pattern, blocked overread, and replacement or stop. The note is not a U-kind, relation, result object, or required project record. Do not ask a practitioner to fill a generic emergence card before the direct object can be named.

B.2.P:4.2 - Claim-Kind Recovery and Subject-Pattern Selection Table

B.2.P:4.3 - Whole-Reidentification Recovery

When a whole-reidentification question remains after claim-kind recovery, do not create a second MHT schema. Use B.2 with this concrete account:

1. name the exact existing whole, admitted kind, and identity or reidentification rule;
2. name each changed delimitation, constituent, constructive relation, assembly, supervision, objective, capability, characteristic, or temporal fact and its subject pattern;
3. try the existing-whole explanation and state whether it preserves the existing whole;
4. if a new whole is still needed, require B.2 and execute the complete A.1 criterion: name the exact candidate, its constituents, obtaining constructive relations, assembly, reidentification rule, and composition-grounded whole characteristic; show that its actual boundary, interfaces, relevant characteristics, and identity-preservation conditions satisfy at least one applicable governed larger-assembly construction method or rule under which it can remain a constituent; then name its already admitted kind and satisfy the direct kind-specific criterion;
5. state whether the direct identity rules preserve the same whole or require a new whole for the current subject claim;
6. only when a specific downstream task must inspect or cite the decision, identify any separate assertion or record, supporting evidence and warrant, G.11 currentness result, and rely, decline, defer, or reopen decision.

Evidence availability, an evaluation value, a record field, and receiving reliance neither construct the candidate nor decide whether the existing whole continues or a new whole must be identified. If the exact candidate, one required constructive fact, or the larger-assembly compatibility condition has no governor, stop with that missing object or governor rather than writing candidateResultRef, resultKindRef, mhtWitnessRef, or a context-shaped placeholder.

B.2.P:4.4 - Collection Boundary

Collection words enter B.2.P only when they are entangled with emergence, synergy, MHT, metric mirage, or whole-reidentification wording.

If the claim is plain collection admission:

• use A.14 for membership and part-whole relation vocabulary;
• use C.13 for collection-as-whole constructional grounding;
• use B.3.5 for working-model assurance grounding;
• use A.1 for an acting collective admitted as U.System; use A.15 for a separate alignment question and A.2 patterns for the exact system-role-kind or assignment claim when either is current;
• use C.16 for a whole-level characteristic.

B.2.P may point to these subject patterns; it does not own their claims. An unassembled collection remains an unassembled collection even when a list, dashboard, or project card names it as one whole. A C.13 collection construction does not by itself establish an integrated assembly, acting system, or A.1 holon.

B.2.P:4.5 - Source Mnemonics and Result Fields

Treat source labels and short forms as recognition cues until the concrete thing or claim and its direct pattern are identified.

• MET may point to a claim that the candidate new whole is an episteme, source-title wording, episteme morphing, publication synthesis, or a source-only phrase. Identify the concrete claim before use.
• MFT may point to capability and functioning whole reidentification, a functional-structure view, function-like wording, method and work collapse, or source-only phrase. Recover before use.
• promotion may hide whole reidentification, status change, release, gate, publication, or project process wording. Recover before use.
• post* fields do not survive as generic governed names. When B.2 is current, name the exact candidate new whole and its already admitted holon kind directly; cite an optional classification assertion or reidentification record only when receiving work needs that episteme.

Do not treat the source label as a subject-pattern locator merely because it is recognizable.