C.2.4:17 - Threshold Crossing and Split Handling

C.2.4:17.1 - Branch-aware high-articulation exits

At AE3+, use the local threshold of the direct branch rather than one universal destination:

for an actual relation claim, restore precision through A.6.P when needed, then use its direct relation pattern;
for a plan or intended activity, use A.15;
for a Method, use A.3.1, while its MethodDescription remains an episteme under C.2.1;
for a dated Work-occurrence claim, use A.15.1 to test or recover admission;
for a representation claim, use its direct subject pattern; use C.2.P.DR when declarative form is being overread, adding A.6.3.RT only when a representation transition is current;
for an abductive prompt or explicit open question, use B.5.2.0 or the direct question pattern;
for a Characteristic or Scale claim, use A.17 and A.18, with C.16.P when its scalar wording hides the construction;
for an ordinary domain claim, keep the episteme publication under C.2.1 and use the direct domain pattern that governs its subject.

If the branch or threshold is unresolved, keep the episteme in B.4.1 or A.16.1 and state what is still missing. AE reports recoverable articulation; it does not itself choose the branch or authorize the receiving use.

C.2.4:17.2 - High-articulation, low-closure cases

A note may reach AE4+ while remaining low or mid in CD. In such cases state that articulation is sufficient for precise handling while closure still leaves rival routes or frames live.

C.2.4:17.3 - Split-publication rule

If one note contains a high-AE fragment and a low-AE remainder, split the publication rather than assigning one averaged level that hides the actual route structure.