B.2:4 - Solution
Use B.2 as a world-side whole-reidentification pattern. Start with the actual wholes and the facts governed by their direct patterns; add records only when a receiving use needs them.
- Name the exact existing whole, its admitted kind, and its identity or reidentification rule.
- Recover each changed delimitation, constituent, constructive part relation, assembly, supervision, objective, capability, characteristic, or temporal fact under its direct pattern. A cue word, profile field, measurement, or graph edge does not make the fact obtain.
- Test whether those facts can be explained as a change of the same whole. If repair, maintenance, changed characteristics, phase coverage, method or work correction, measurement, or architecture-view correction is enough under the existing reidentification rule, keep that whole and stop B.2.
- If the existing whole is not enough, identify the exact candidate new whole and execute the complete A.1 criterion. Recover its constituents, obtaining constructive relations, assembly, reidentification rule, and composition-grounded whole characteristic. Also show that the candidate’s actual boundary, interfaces, relevant characteristics, and identity-preservation conditions satisfy the applicability and compatibility conditions of at least one governed larger-assembly construction method or rule under which it can remain a constituent. Then name its already admitted holon kind and satisfy the direct kind-specific criterion. If a required condition fails, the candidate fails A.1; if missing evidence or an unavailable dependency prevents a determination, evaluation returns
unknown. - State the whole-reidentification claim: why the existing whole no longer carries the current subject claim and why the candidate new whole is the EntityOfConcern. This comparison does not itself create, admit, or classify either whole.
- Materialize a trigger profile, optional explanation-result episteme, reidentification assertion, or record only when a named receiving use must inspect, cite, compare, or preserve that claim.
The optional MHTTriggerProfile, ExistingWholeExplanationResult, and HolonReidentificationRecord are ordinary C.2.1 epistemes. Their content can designate exact wholes, facts, claims, and relation occurrences; the content fields are not world-side participants and supply no substitute for the preceding move.
B.2:4.1 - MHTTriggerProfile
MHTTriggerProfile is a U.Episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the exact existing whole already recognized under an admitted holon kind. It collects exact current cues and support for asking whether whole reidentification is live. It is not MHT itself, and its content fields do not declare another relation.
| Content field | Value kind and use |
|---|---|
existingWholeRef | U.HolonRef resolving to the exact existing whole already recognized under an admitted holon kind. |
existingWholeIdentityRuleRef | U.EpistemeRef resolving to the current identity-rule episteme. |
currentPartRelationRefs[] | U.EntityRef values, each resolving to one explicitly individuated current part-relation occurrence. |
changedDelimitationRelationRefs[] | References to exact changed delimitation relation occurrences under their direct patterns. |
changedPartRelationRefs[] | References to exact changed part-relation occurrences. |
changedSupervisionRelationRefs[] | References to exact changed supervision relation occurrences. |
changedCoordinationRelationRefs[] | References to exact changed coordination relation occurrences. |
changedObjectiveClaimRef? | U.EpistemeRef resolving to the exact objective-change claim. |
changedCapabilityClaimRef? | U.EpistemeRef resolving to the exact capability-change claim. |
agencyThresholdClaimRef? | U.EpistemeRef resolving to a current characteristic-space threshold claim. |
temporalConsolidationClaimRef? | U.EpistemeRef resolving to the exact temporal-consolidation claim. |
evidenceRelationRefs[] | References to exact evidence relation occurrences supporting the trigger claims. |
sourceUseRelationRefs[] | References to exact source-use relation occurrences when a source is relied on. |
The profile’s exact ClaimGraph and effective U.ReferenceScheme, together with its existing-whole EntityOfConcern, constitute its C.2.1 identity. Any current U.ClaimScope and an independently selected model-use structure can qualify this episteme when its receiving use needs them. These identity values and qualifications do not identify either whole, become MHT trigger facts, or make any referenced relation obtain. A single cue warrants attention; it does not establish whole reidentification.
B.2:4.2 - Existing-whole comparison and optional result
First perform an ordinary comparison: compare the observed change with direct explanations that preserve the existing whole. Consider better parts, corrected relations, improved measurement, method or Work repair, richer phase coverage, capability change, and architecture-view repair only when their direct patterns make those explanations current. If one explanation is sufficient for the receiving use, keep the existing whole, use that subject pattern, and stop B.2.
When another use must inspect or cite the outcome, identify an optional ExistingWholeExplanationResult episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the existing whole:
| Content field | Value kind and use |
|---|---|
observedChangeClaimRef | U.EpistemeRef resolving to the exact observed-gain or observed-shift claim. |
candidateExplanationClaimRefs[] | Exact claims under their direct subject patterns. |
explanationEvidenceRelationRefs[] | Evidence relations actually used to assess those explanations. |
existingWholeSufficiencyVerdict | `sufficient |
remainingWholeReidentificationQuestionRef? | The exact residual question when the result is insufficient or unknown. |
The comparison is an action a practitioner performs. The optional result records its claim-bearing outcome. Neither is a reusable checklist or Method unless an independent receiving use later requires and defines such an object. The episteme creates none of its referenced claims or relations.
B.2:4.3 - HolonReidentificationRecord
HolonReidentificationRecord is an optional U.Episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the exact new holon. Use it only when a person or system performing later work needs a durable account of why that new holon, rather than the prior whole, is the current EntityOfConcern. Candidate classification remains a separately governed judgment.
| Content field | Value kind and use |
|---|---|
existingWholeRef | U.HolonRef resolving to the exact prior whole already recognized under an admitted holon kind. |
selectedTriggerProfileRef | U.EpistemeRef resolving to the selected MHTTriggerProfile. |
existingWholeExplanationResultRef? | U.EpistemeRef resolving to the optional ExistingWholeExplanationResult; omit it when the ordinary comparison sentence is enough. |
resultHolonRef | U.HolonRef resolving to the exact candidate new whole. |
resultHolonKindRef | U.KindRef resolving to its exact admitted holon kind. |
resultHolonClassificationAssertionRef? | U.EpistemeRef resolving, only when a person or system performing later work must inspect or cite the judgment, to a C.2.1 assertion that the candidate new whole satisfies the A.1 criterion under the stated admitted holon kind. |
wholeReidentificationClaimRef | U.EpistemeRef resolving to the claim that the candidate new whole, rather than the prior whole, now carries the subject claim. |
changedClaimPatternLocators[] | U.EpistemeRef values resolving to the direct patterns for each changed claim used in the rationale. |
evidenceRelationRefs[] | References to exact evidence relation occurrences supporting the reidentification claim. |
sourceUseRelationRefs[] | References to exact source-use relation occurrences when sources are relied on. |
mathLensUseRelationRefs[] | References to exact C.29 lens-use relations when mathematical results bear on the claim. |
The record does not make the A.1 criterion true, admit a public kind, or create the candidate new holon. E.24.UK is the pattern for public-kind admission; A.1 is the pattern for world-side recognition; C.2.1 is the pattern for the optional classification assertion; its warrant requires exact evidence and assurance relations. Publication of the record is another relation under the publication patterns.
B.2:4.4 - Candidate New Whole Reference And Kind
Use one resultHolonRef : U.HolonRef for the candidate new whole and one resultHolonKindRef : U.KindRef for its kind. E.24.UK must already have admitted that public kind, and the candidate new whole must satisfy the A.1 constructive criterion plus any kind-specific membership condition. Neither the references nor the record establish those facts.
When a person or system performing downstream work must inspect or cite the classification judgment, add the optional resultHolonClassificationAssertionRef. That C.2.1 assertion may report a governed evaluation of true, false, or unknown; its evidence, warrant, and G.11 currentness stay separate from world-side criterion satisfaction. B.2 still asks a different question: whether the existing whole can continue to carry the subject claim or a new whole must be identified.
Do not use post* field names as live governed names. They hide the candidate new whole and its kind and invite temporal shorthand. Name that whole and its admitted public kind; cite a classification assertion only when the receiving use needs that episteme.
B.2:4.5 - Agency Threshold
An agency-characteristic threshold is a condition in a characteristic space, not a root kind or a substitute for the A.13 agency claim. State its exact System, predicate, claim scope, and qualification window.
Use A.13, A.19, and C.16 for the characteristic-space and threshold claim. Levin-line TAME work can discipline the multi-characteristic framing when agency evidence is relied on for the current claim. B.2 uses agency threshold only as one possible trigger in MHTTriggerProfile, and only when crossing the threshold changes closure, supervision, objective, or whole identity.
Recover the admitted System and its agency-relevant characteristic or threshold independently. A System may bear that characteristic while participating passively in the situation. A precise agency claim additionally requires the A.13 core, including the local agential system-role kind, System-classification judgment, and obtaining assignment; a characteristic-only claim does not acquire that additional scope. If claim-bearing source wording still says only “role,” use E.10.ROLE rather than presuming classification or assignment.
B.2:4.6 - Acting-System Participation
When a source describes a system changing another holon, recover acting-system participation and transformation separately.
Use A.12 for acting-side externalization, A.3.4 for bounded transformation, and A.15.1 for work occurrence. A system changing another holon does not thereby become its part or the larger whole containing it, and no U.Transformer kind is created.
B.2:4.7 - Mathematical-Lens Separation
Graph, algebra, RG-like, MSPD, benchmark, scaling, and morphism language can bear on MHT recognition only as mathematical or analytical expression.
Use C.29 when the mathematical lens is relied on for the current claim. Use B.2 only after the holon identity claim is recovered and the ordinary existing-whole comparison leaves a whole-reidentification question.
B.2:4.8 - Keep Whole Identity, Evidence, Currentness, And Reliance Separate
Keep these five distinctions explicit:
- the existing whole and candidate new whole, their constituents, obtaining constructive relations, assemblies, characteristics, and identity rules are world-side objects and facts under their direct patterns;
- a B.2 whole-reidentification assertion is a C.2.1 episteme about those objects;
- evidence and assurance relations support or warrant the assertion’s claim content but create neither whole and decide neither identity rule;
- use G.11 to determine whether the selected assertion or record edition is current for the receiving use;
- a person or system performing the receiving work decides whether to rely, decline to rely, defer, or reopen.
Evidence present or missing, and a current or stale record, can change what an evaluation returns and whether a person or system relies while performing receiving work. They cannot turn the same whole into a new whole or a new whole into the same one. Whether the existing whole continues or a new whole must be identified follows the direct identity and reidentification rules plus the actual construction facts. A.1 recognition of either candidate supplies no B.2 warrant and does not select B.2.