C.2.P:4.1 - General Recovery Check

Run this check only while one C.2.P distinction remains unresolved.

1. Name the sentence function. State what the sentence would let a reader claim or do.
2. Recover one blocking distinction. Separate source expression, episteme, publication, bounded publication unit, carrier relation, source-to-use relation, or project-side use. Use A.6.P as a separate step only when the remaining problem is relation precision.
3. Select the next result. Rewrite directly, write the compact row, perform the full check under its material conditions, or return a non-use result. If another pattern now supplies the needed definition, constraint, or test, name that contribution and stop C.2.P.

Fail closed when the kind, relation, use, or remaining reader action cannot be recovered. A type-correct sentence that no longer shows the working situation or useful action is an incomplete rewrite.

C.2.P:4.1.1 - Slash Discipline

In conventional abbreviations, source titles, mathematical notations, standards, URLs, file paths, and ordinary notations, a slash can be part of an accepted designation rather than a hidden FPF kind. In FPF-facing episteme and publication ontology, a slash is still a recovery trigger before it is a synonym marker unless the mark is part of such accepted notation, carrier syntax, or conventional designation.

Before leaving a slash expression in current prose, classify the expression as one of these cases:

• accepted notation or conventional designation: a standard name, source name, discipline abbreviation, established compound name, formula, ratio, fraction, unit, path-like quoted source token, title, product name, file path, URL, or quoted source wording where the slash is part of the accepted designation or carrier syntax; keep ISO/IEC, ISO/IEC/IEEE, 1/2, URLs, conventional abbreviations, and similar forms when the sentence uses them as notation;
• a plain-language synonym pair with no ontology, authority, evidence, or use-boundary claim;
• a lazy and/or-style join that must be split or recovered before FPF-governed use;
• a composite-kind candidate that needs F.18 and A.6.P recovery;
• a relation claim that needs a RelationKind, a QualifiedRelationRecord, or a multi-term relation phrase with typed endpoints, slots, qualifiers, scope, time, and viewpoint;
• a tuple-like record that needs a named record kind and named slot semantics;
• a failed ontology signal where the sentence lists unlike values because the FPF kind under repair, relation record, relation phrase, tuple-like record, alternative-case disposition, or not-triggered disposition has not yet been recovered.

If the expression is not one of the safe notation, conventional-designation, carrier-syntax, quoted-source, or plain-language cases, do not keep the slash as final wording. Do not repair it by replacing the slash with one equally vague grouped word. Write the recovered FPF kind, relation record, relation phrase, tuple-like record, alternative-case disposition, or not-triggered disposition by value.

C.2.P:4.1.2 - Unclear Source Meaning and FPF Extension Candidates

Sometimes the problem is not a bad word but one of two different cases:

• the intended claim cannot be determined from the surrounding source, current FPF kinds, or current FPF episteme and publication ontology;
• the claim is understandable, but current FPF does not yet contain the kind, pattern, relation record, or method guidance needed to carry it.

Do not merge those cases. An unclear claim is not current architecture truth merely because deleting it feels risky, and it must not be rewritten by guessing a likely author intention. An understandable uncovered claim may be retained as a candidate FPF extension only when the problem situation, tempting overread, rejected current uses, current FPF gap, and the first user action that would improve are stated by value.

Classify the case explicitly:

• recovered by value: the text now names the current U.Episteme, selected EntityOfConcern, U.View, publication form, generic publication face, MVPK face under E.17 constraints, PublicationUnit, carrier relation, relation record, relation phrase, tuple-like record, FPF pattern, document named for source, evidence, architecture, or review use, reviewed publication, review packet, review record, or review state, project-side FPF kind and reference named by value when projectSideFPFRef is current. The selected value is one current value, not the list: C.11 ChoiceResult; C.11 decision record; A.6.A action invitation; A.15 U.WorkPlan; A.15.1 dated U.Work occurrence; U.Method; U.MethodDescription; A.20 constraint or adjudication decision record; A.21 GateDecision; A.21 DecisionLogRef; A.10 evidence path; typed evidence record; B.3 AssuranceResult; an engineering-justification result under its direct pattern; typed status record whose FPF status pattern is named; carrier relation; front-end relation; or not-triggered alternative;
• understandable FPF extension candidate: the thought is clear enough to state as a candidate new or amended FPF kind, pattern, relation record, method guidance, accepted DRR content decision, or campaign-scoped content question, but it does not carry current authority, evidence, or use-boundary claim until an accepted architecture decision, accepted DRR, or accepted FPF pattern supplies that authority;
• source wording without FPF-governed use: the phrase has no current authority, evidence, or use-boundary claim;
• reduced-use cue: the phrase is kept only as a recognition cue or anti-case, not as a claim-bearing architecture decision;
• blocked use: the phrase is blocked for claim-bearing architecture, pattern, or project text while the needed meaning, kind, or relation is missing.
• rewrite incomplete: the repaired wording may be kind-correct, but it does not yet state a remaining reader use, recognition reason, Tech-to-Plain mapping when both registers are current, or FPF pattern application, or a Plain or didactic line carries ontological, evidence, causal, assurance, bridge, gate, work, decision, or use-boundary claim that cannot be recovered from the Tech interpretation; continue repair or demote to a non-use disposition before the text has FPF-governed use.

These dispositions are recovery results, not a meta-governance authority over all of FPF. When recovery names another FPF kind, use the pattern that defines or constrains that kind, its declared use boundary, and its conformance checks. C.2.P may identify that A.10, A.15, A.15.4, A.20, A.21, B.3, C.11, F.9, E.17.EFP, E.17.ID.CR, or another FPF pattern applies. After that identification, C.2.P no longer defines or constrains the recovered kind. C.2.P only makes the kind under repair, relation, and use boundary explicit enough to apply the appropriate pattern.

No other disposition is closed. In particular, “seems to mean”, “probably about”, a cleaner paraphrase, or a broad umbrella replacement is not a successful recovery.

C.2.P:4.1.3 - Keep source, return, work, and next-pattern questions separate

When source data or source material is epistemic, identify the source expression and selected source episteme. Add a publication occurrence only when availability matters. Then name the relation or path that carries the source into the current use.

Treat source-use as a cue, not as a relation name. Do not call an endpoint value unless the direct pattern actually declares a value slot.

If the wording also makes a claim about a Method, Work, transformation, evaluation, transfer, or receiving use, use its direct pattern. Use A.6.P.WMR only while the work-side relation or what is being claimed about it remains hidden. Physical raw material stays with its constituent, resource-use, supply, transfer, or transformation relation.

Use source-return only for a reverse or escalation move from a derivative, coarsened, extracted, compressed, rendered, or reused object to a named source. Such a move is current when a stronger use, dispute, freshness change, hidden loss, or missing distinction requires the source again. For ordinary movement from a source into current use, say source-to-use path or name the actual relation. Name a rule-bearing ClaimGraph only when later comparison or reuse depends on the identity of that rule.

C.2.P does not decide whether Work may proceed. Use A.15.4 only after the wording repair shows that a publication, display, or other appearance is being relied on as a reason for intended Work and the exact project-side object or relation is still unresolved. If the direct pattern is already known, use it without an intermediate reliance-repair branch.

Once the remaining question is clear, stop C.2.P and choose the direct branch:

• A.6.P for relation precision;
• F.18 for a reusable name;
• C.30.P for a hidden architecture or structure distinction;
• C.16.P or C.16.Q for a hidden characteristic, scale, or evaluative-quality distinction;
• the applicable episteme or publication pattern for an already identified episteme or publication question.

These are alternatives, not a mandatory sequence. C.2.P may expose a naming or authority question, but it neither renames an accepted FPF pattern nor admits a reusable head; use F.18 and the applicable accepted decision source for that change.

Carrier-like words are only recognition cues. Once the category is clear, use one row below and stop C.2.P as soon as that contribution closes the question.