C.2.P:5 - Archetypal Grounding
C.2.P:5.0.1 - Cheap case: ordinary reader help
Starting sentence: “The note supports the reader.”
Questions: What does the note let the reader do? Does the sentence claim evidence, authority, gate passage, work permission, or assurance?
Result: It only helps navigation. Rewrite: “The note helps the reader find section 4.2.” The recovered function is ordinary reader help. No FPF kind, relation, compact row, or full check is needed. Stop after the sentence.
C.2.P:5.0.2 - Mixed case: display and decision
Starting sentence: “The dashboard approves launch.”
Questions: Is the dashboard the decision, or does it display one? Which exact project object carries the approval claim?
Result when a decision exists: “The dashboard shows GateDecision GD-17 for release candidate R; the decision, not the display, records that the gate passed.” E.24.PUB separates publication form, carrier, and occurrence; use E.17 when publishing a reader-facing account of the accepted decision. A.21 supplies the gate-decision meaning. The reader may find and cite GD-17, but must use the direct release or permission rule for launch. Stop.
Result when no decision resolves: “The dashboard is only a cue; launch approval is unresolved.” Block approval-bearing use until the exact decision exists.
C.2.P:5.1 - Boundary and Anti-Cases
| Boundary case | C.2.P result | Why this protects use |
|---|---|---|
| Ordinary reader help | The sentence says a note helps a reader find another section, with no evidence, authority, use-boundary, work, gate, decision, or project reliance claim. Leave ordinary wording ordinary or make one local wording repair. | Keeps ordinary prose affordable; support as ordinary help is not forced into a record. |
| Relation-only support wording | The sentence says one claim, source description, grounding relation, evidence record, B.3 AssuranceResult, engineering-justification result, causal-use relation, mathematical-lens relation, characteristic relation, declared-use boundary, work relation, or publication-companion use bears on another claim, and source-relation use or publication construction is already clear. Apply A.6.P; no C.2.P recovery is needed. | Prevents this pattern from absorbing relation precision restoration. |
| Known FPF kind named by value | The sentence already names the project-side FPF kind and reference, such as an evidence path, gate decision, decision record, Work occurrence, B.3 AssuranceResult, or architecture pattern application. Apply the named pattern without an intermediate C.2.P step. | Avoids a needless logical hop and keeps the relevant neighboring-pattern application intact. |
| Source phrase without recovered FPF-governed use | Source wording is interesting but its FPF kind, relation, or use disposition cannot be recovered. Keep it as reduced-use cue or block its FPF use. | Preserves source meaning without guessing FPF meaning. |
| Replacement head is another umbrella | A proposed repair changes support to basis, display to face, or route to path while the kind and relation are still hidden. Mark repair incomplete. | Blocks lexical churn and forces the kind named by value, relation, and declared use boundary to be recovered. |
| Apparatus too heavy | A one-sentence local repair is replaced by a full record, checklist, and source note with no additional declared use boundary. Use the local sentence or compact row instead. | Keeps first-use cost and maintenance cost inside the quality claim. |
C.2.P:5.2 - Transfer Coverage
C.2.P is intentionally narrow but must transfer across three recurrent publication situations:
- FPF-side drafting: pattern text, DRR text, source-relation notes, review-use notes, and pattern draft prose;
- project-side publication: dashboards, explanations, cards, documents, front-ends, rendered files, and generated summaries used around evidence, work, gates, decisions, assurance, or methods;
- external source-expression clarification: seminar fragments, papers, reviews, standards, and tool outputs being clarified before possible FPF use.
In all three situations the same invariant holds: before accepting the wording as current FPF text, recover the distinction between source wording and current FPF wording, claim-bearing episteme, publication construction, carrier-relation construction, relation-like slice, the applicable neighboring pattern for any non-C.2.P field, and remaining reader use.