C.2.1:2 - Problem
Without one direct episteme ontology, several practical failures recur.
- Carrier and episteme collapse. A PDF, database row, proof script, dashboard, or neural-model file is treated as the knowledge holon. File replacement is then reported as epistemic change even when claim content, EntityOfConcern, and interpretation are unchanged.
- Subject drift. A specification or model keeps one label while the entity it concerns changes. Comparison and evidence use then combine claims about different entities.
- Interpretation drift. The same tokens or graph are read under different designation, measurement, or evaluation rules while users assume one unchanged episteme.
- Neighboring-relation collapse. Grounding holon, viewpoint, view, claim scope, model-use structure, evidence, edition, and publication become optional fields of one omnibus record. Their different obtaining and identity rules disappear.
- Representation-first ontology. Tuple components, graph nodes, schema fields, and database keys are treated as actual relation participants or subject identity discriminators merely because a tool exposes them.
- Agency leakage. A standard, model, method description, or claim graph is said to perform work. Systems perform work; epistemes participate in use, description, evidence, decision, and publication relations.
- Dependent-kind identity fork. A method description or view is assigned another identity merely because its direct pattern supplies a membership condition. The same episteme can then appear twice, and a viewpoint or method-description use can be mistaken for a change of knowledge object.
The familiar Symbol-Concept-Object triangle can still introduce the difference among expression, meaning, and subject. It cannot serve as the ontology because it suppresses reference scheme, grounding, viewpoint, evidence, and the distinction between a relation and a representation of that relation.