C.2.1:4.2.4 - State rule-content and subject assertions without pattern ownership

In ordinary prose, cite the PatternID and state the concrete contribution: what the cited content defines, constrains, tests, distinguishes, or helps the practitioner do. This readable branch is normally sufficient. A pattern is neither an owner nor an actor, and no governance relation is implied by an instrumental sentence such as “use A.1 to test constructive holon recognition.”

Open an exact defining or constraining episteme edition or ClaimGraph only when its identity changes interpretation, migration, conflict analysis, publication, dependency repair, or reuse. Then identify the subject, predicate or constraint, polarity, exact defining content, case facts, and only the scope, time, scheme, or bounded-use qualifications that change the assertion. Do not fabricate an assertion episteme merely to avoid an ordinary pattern citation.

Definition or constraint is not actual rule-content use. State derivedUsingRuleContent(dependentContent, baseContent) only when one identified derivation claim used the exact nonempty base subgraph as a formal premise under a declared inference rule. State evaluatedAgainstRuleContent(dependentContent, baseContent) only when one identified criterion-selection claim selected that base for one exact bounded evaluation. Consultation, influence, quotation, provenance, evidence, evaluation Work, and later sufficiency establish neither predicate.

An E.4.PFR row is optional and opens only for a named framework-maintenance, edition-impact, comparison, publication/dependency-repair, or refresh receiver. It represents an already identified assertion; it creates neither the assertion nor a pattern-owner fact.