C.2.2:1 - Problem frame

KD‑CAL asks a simple operational question: “Where can I safely use this claim?” FPF answers with a minimal “epistemic location” built from three coordinates. Any relations traversed by a justification path are named separately:

• F (Formality) describes how the claim is expressed and how strongly it supports verification workflows (C.2.3).

• G (Claim scope) describes where the claim is asserted to apply as a set-like object (A.2.6).

• R (Reliability) describes how strongly the claim is warranted by linked evidence under that scope.

• CL / CL^k / CL^plane (Congruence Levels) describe fit or loss for the relation families that define them—for example, a semantic relation, kind relation, or reference-plane relation (B.3, C.3, F.9). A CL value belongs to the declared relation or traversal used by the path, not to the claim as a fourth coordinate. Shared wording about a “context” creates no relation and no loss value. In practice, the triad is frequently used before it is made explicit:

• Authors implicitly “average” disparate evidence and report a single confidence.

• Teams treat higher formality (F) as if it automatically implies higher warrant (R).

• Scope growth is smuggled in through phrasing instead of explicit scope operators (A.2.6).

• A claim or its evidence is reused after a change of scope, kind, plane, notation, source-local meaning, model-use basis, or evidence basis without naming the actual relation and routing its declared loss into R.

This pattern makes R explicit in KD‑CAL and fixes the triad discipline required by Kind‑CAL (C.3) and the Trust & Assurance calculus (B.3).