B.3.5:9 - Rule‑set — CT2R‑LOG (conceptual, human‑first)

Intent (one line). Make Working-Model relations the canonical relation vocabulary for authors, while providing a clean, purpose-selected bridge to assurance through aliasing and grounding semantics; the bridge is required only for the published assertions covered by an elected B.3.5 profile or named current requirement.

B.3.5:9.1 - Vocabulary and meanings in this pattern

• Working-Model relation. A human-oriented direct relation statement using a public name such as ut:ComponentOf, ut:PortionOf, or ut:AspectOf, or an ordinary sentence such as “this edition belongs to this product series.” It is the canonical public layer for readers; the direct pattern keeps the relation meaning fixed.

• Assurance Layer. Three complementary grounding modes an author MAY attach:

  • Constructive grounding: an inspectable account in one of the three C.13 forms (Γ_m.sum | Γ_m.set | Γ_m.slice). It names independently grounded participants, direct relation occurrences, the applicable construction rule, and identity or reidentification conditions. No formal notation is required, and the account does not create the relation it reports.
  • Logical grounding: a reasoned chain (think KD‑CAL style arguments) that shows why the relation follows from stated premises.
  • Mapping grounding: a relation-label alignment that shows the domain label truly denotes the intended Working-Model relation (Kind-CAL / Lang-CHR stance). These three grounding modes are complementary, not exclusive.

• Empirical Validation. How a published relation meets reality (observations, calibration scenarios). It lives beside, not inside, the relation. (See B.3 family.)

• Grounding vocabulary (tv:).

  • tv:AliasOf — declares that a Working‑Model relation is the canonical projection of a more general pattern (its “principle of use”).
  • tv:groundedBy — points to the author’s grounding account (Constructive, Logical, or Mapping, as applicable). When a construction trace is recorded, it is a C.2.1 episteme with its own edition and currentness. The tv: namespace is part of the Core conceptual lexicon; it is notation‑agnostic and tool‑agnostic.

• tv:validationMode ∈ {postulate, inferential, axiomatic}. A declaration by the author of the confidence stance for a relation instance: postulate — a pragmatic working claim; inferential — a reasoned consequence; axiomatic — the author declares that a constructive account is the assurance basis for this assertion. The mode does not classify the world-side relation and guarantees neither identity nor timelessness.

Authoring note. This pattern defines meanings, not formats. The words above SHALL be used consistently and without reference to any specific notations or execution environments (Guard‑Rails: Notational Independence).

B.3.5:9.2 - Normative rules (MUST/SHALL clauses for thinking‑and‑writing)

S‑1 (Working-Model first). Authors SHALL state each covered direct relation claim in Working-Model form. Assurance accounts remain below that public layer. Electing this profile adds branch-specific trace and mode obligations; it is not a precondition for direct use.

S‑2 (Alias declaration). If a Working‑Model relation follows a known general principle, the author SHOULD declare tv:AliasOf <Principle>, thereby making the intended use‑pattern explicit for reviewers and future readers. (This improves comparability without introducing extra formality.)

S‑3 (Grounding by mode). For every relation instance covered by an elected B.3.5 profile, the author MUST set validationMode and follow the corresponding grounding stance:

• S‑3.a postulate. For a branch that permits it, the author may omit constructive grounding, state the working scope, and give the empirical cues that would challenge the claim.

• S‑3.b inferential. For a branch that permits it, the author gives a short reasoned chain from admitted statements that a peer can follow.

• S‑3.c axiomatic. The author links the assertion to the current C.2.1 trace episteme required by its branch. A competent peer can recover the exact participants, direct relation occurrence, applicable rule, and identity or reidentification conditions. The account supports inspection; it creates none of those facts.

• S‑3.d Structural parthood. A covered ComponentOf, PortionOf, or AspectOf assertion requires validationMode=axiomatic and the applicable current C.13 construction account; postulate is not available.

• S‑3.e Collection belonging. A covered belongs-to assertion uses the rule defined for that collection and requires validationMode=axiomatic and one current C.13 set trace. The trace reports already established belonging and collection identity. A logical argument or evidence object may support the inclusion decision separately, but neither substitutes for the elected set trace, turns belonging into parthood, or prohibits a separately grounded part claim.

S-4 (Relation-kind sense-making).

• For structural ComponentOf, PortionOf, and AspectOf claims, the elected profile requires the applicable current construction account and validationMode=axiomatic.

• For collection belonging, the elected profile requires one current C.13 set trace and validationMode=axiomatic. The collection’s own rule still decides whether the occurrence obtains.

• For other epistemic or constitutive links, constructive grounding remains optional and the branch may prefer inferential or postulate reasoning with empirical cues.

S‑5 (Order and time do not establish parthood). Execution order, parallelism or interval inclusion alone SHALL NOT establish a part-whole relation. State Method composition under B.1.5 and temporal facts under C.27; use B.1.4 when those recovered relations must be aggregated. Independently established A.15.1 Work-part relations and A.14 proper-phase relations for unchanged non-Work carriers remain admissible under their own rules.

S‑6 (Unidirectional dependence). CT2R‑LOG may consume Compose‑CAL and KD‑CAL conceptually; it SHALL NOT redefine them. Meaning flows downward only (Kernel → Extension → Context → Instance).

S‑7 (Register discipline). When naming principles in tv:AliasOf, authors SHOULD use Tech/Plain twin labels where available and obey minimal‑generality and rewrite rules (LEX‑BUNDLE), so that aliases are recognisable across contexts of meaning.

S‑8 (No tool talk). Core prose MUST NOT introduce CI/CD terms, file formats, APIs, or machine‑oriented notations in place of concepts. If examples are needed, they MAY be plain‑language narratives or domain vignettes. (This pattern is conceptual by Standard.)

B.3.5:9.3 - Scope & Non‑Goals (to keep the plane clean)

• In scope. Canonical publication of relations for humans; alias‑to‑principle clarity; conceptual grounding stories; author‑declared validationMode; separation of structure vs order/time.

• Out of scope. Any machinery that executes checks; any binding to specific notations; any process/workflow mechanics; any discussion of file formats. (Those belong to tooling publications, pedagogy publications, and companion records; they SHALL NOT be imported by the Conceptual Core.)

• Edge placements. When a claim is chiefly about naming fit across Contexts, prefer Mapping grounding (Kind-CAL/Lang‑CHR stance). When it is chiefly about why it follows, prefer Logical grounding. When it is about what the whole is, from its parts, prefer Constructive grounding. (Authors MAY combine them.)

B.3.5:9.4 - Author’s working moves (micro‑playbook, notation‑free)

M‑1. State the relation in Working‑Model form (e.g., “Impeller ComponentOf Pump”). M‑2. If a publication choice or named current requirement elects this profile, pick validationMode; otherwise keep the direct relation claim and stop:

• For a permitted exploratory claim, choose postulate and state scope plus challenge cues.
• For a permitted conclusion from known statements, choose inferential and list the short argument.
• For structural parthood covered by the profile, choose axiomatic and link the applicable current construction account.
• For collection belonging covered by the profile, choose axiomatic and link one current C.13 set trace that reports the already established relation under the collection’s own rule.

M‑3. Add tv:AliasOf only when a named direct relation principle helps reviewers recognize the intended reading; do not alias the relation to a constructor result. M‑4. If assembly uses two parallel lines, state the actual Method/Work and temporal facts. Add any independently obtaining part relation under its own rule; parallelism alone does not establish it. M‑5. Stop when the selected readable relation and remaining non-use boundary are clear and, if this profile is elected, its validation mode and required current support are recoverable without guessing.