C.2.4:13 - Worked Examples and Edge Cases

C.2.4:13.1 - High formality, low articulation

A template may be syntactically precise and high in F, yet still low in AE because the actual participants, field meanings, bearer, planned action, admitted Work occurrence, reliance move, evaluator, or ordinary domain meaning remains unclear. A local system-role kind, classification, or assignment is selected only after evidence supports that branch. Formal-looking language does not make its semantic route recoverable.

C.2.4:13.2 - Plain plan, high articulation

The note At 14:00, Maintenance Team 2 will isolate Pump P-17, replace Seal S-4, and restore service only after Leak Test LT-9 passes uses ordinary language and little formal notation. It can still reach AE4: the planned actor, affected entity, ordered actions, time, and completion condition are explicit enough for the planning branch. It routes to A.15; the note describes planned actions, while A.15.1 governs any admitted Work occurrence. The note needs no relation repair merely to count as explicit.

C.2.4:13.3 - Relation-looking but wrongly routed

A row Maintenance Team 2 | Pump P-17 | isolate | 14:00 looks slot-shaped. If it records intended action, however, it is a compact plan row rather than proof of a durable relation. Its layout does not raise AE until the planning meaning and conditions are recoverable, and it does not select A.6.P.

C.2.4:13.4 - Threshold edge case

A cue with a stable trigger and candidate anchors may still sit between AE2 and AE3 because its direct branch is unresolved. Keep it in B.4.1 or A.16.1, state what is missing, and apply the threshold of the branch eventually selected rather than a universal relation threshold.