C.16.Q:4.7 - Local repair stances and cross-local Bridge discipline
Within one exact <ReferenceScheme, LocalSenseClaim> interpretation basis, lexical restoration may choose a local sense or rename without asserting an F.9 Bridge. When two quality senses have different interpretation bases, first resolve both exact F.17 SchemeSenseCell values and test the direct F.9 Bridge predicate. Scheme difference, shared spelling, an analogy, a loss note, or a quality record establishes no Bridge.
If the Bridge obtains, cite its exact occurrence and state any proposed comparison, substitution, operationalization, or projection as a separate F.9 bounded-use claim. That claim names the direction, rule, tolerated loss, polarity, and effective ReferenceScheme. Apply A.10 or B.3 only for the reliance branch that is actually live. A Bridge Card remains optional reusable packaging.
Add an F.9.1 stance note only when a short interpretive cue helps a reader understand that exact bounded-use claim. The note is a separate C.2.1 episteme whose EntityOfConcern is the claim. Its optional label may be, for example:
localRename— read this use as near-renaming within its declared local boundary; do not infer cross-local identity.operationalizes— read the receiving expression as a procedural or measurable aid for this use; do not infer work, implementation, permission, or suitability beyond the cited claim.partialAnalogy— read the stated correspondence as partial; do not infer substitution.projection— read this use as a deliberate reduction of the source reading; the F.9 claim still carries its rule and tolerated loss.nonEquivalent— treat this as a warning against equivalence and silent substitution; the label alone asserts neitherDisjoint, negative polarity, nor an evidence score.
These tokens are optional reading labels inside a stance note. They are not Bridge kinds, direct relations, result claims, or substitutes for the Bridge, bounded-use claim, evidence, or loss account.
Examples:
QS.PreconceptualFitandQS.LatentFitare usually only candidates for partial correspondence. If their exact F.17 cells are cross-local, test an F.9 kind such asPartial-overlap; an optionalpartialAnalogynote may help read the resulting bounded-use claim but cannot establish identity.- A progression from
QS.PreconceptualFittoQS.PhenomenalCharacterneeds its exact direct relation or bounded-use account; shared articulation history does not make the senses identical. - Using
QS.PreconceptualFitto choose engineering measures is a proposed operationalization or projection use. Name the actual Bridge, separate use rule and tolerated loss, and direct measurement or characterization result. Add a stance note only if it improves the reading. - Relating
QS.EngineeringQualityFamilytoQS.UseValueis normally a directional, loss-bearing proposed use under a declared CG-frame, not identity and not permission to substitute one score for the other. - An obtaining F.9 Bridge between
QS.ExplanatoryMeritandQS.UseValuedoes not by itself establish identity. An F.9.1nonEquivalentnote may help read an existing bounded-use claim but cannot replace the Bridge finding or claim polarity. - Pirsig-style dynamic quality may locally cue
QS.PreconceptualFitor sometimesQS.LatentFit. Within one exact interpretation basis this may be a local rename; across bases it needs exact F.17 cells and F.9 treatment. The label alone supplies neither identity nor empirical grounding. - Pirsig-style static quality usually cues a
CharacteristicorBundlepublication under another declared sense; it is not identical with dynamic quality. QS.ArchitecturalDescriptionFitnessandQS.EngineeringQualityFamilyhave different bearer lanes. Any cross-local correspondence must keep the exact description-side and system-side cells, Bridge occurrence, bounded-use claim, and losses separate and must name which description-fitness heads, if any, are proposed to proxy which system-side characteristics.