C.2.P:10 - Rationale

FPF already contains the relevant ontology. The recurring defect was not lack of concepts but ad hoc wording that bypassed them: source, target, display, object, host, route, supported use, and similar trigger terms packed several FPF kinds and relations into one convenient phrase; they are examples of wording to unpack, not current replacement vocabulary.

For FPF-governed wording, use F.19 with the E.10 cues, then use only the pattern whose field remains unresolved: F.18 for a reusable name, A.6.P for relation precision, and A.7, C.2.1, E.17.0, E.17, MVPK, or E.24.PUB for the relevant EntityOfConcern, episteme, view, publication, or carrier distinction. C.2.P stops as soon as the direct pattern and field are known.

Because every normative FPF pattern must satisfy E.2, epistemic precision is not a value apart from P-2 Didactic Primacy. A stricter repair is incomplete if it turns reader-facing problem text into a kind inventory with no working situation or first useful move. The remedy is recognition wording whose claim remains recoverable through the Tech interpretation or a named FPF pattern application, with a declared-use boundary when that boundary matters.