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.