| Token swap | Replace display with face or host with file without recovering kind and sentence function. | Apply head-kind and relation recovery before rewriting. |
| Group-kind list | Leave a list such as pattern, record, relation, or action as if the list names one kind. | Decide whether the sentence needs one kind, a relation record, a tuple-like record, alternative cases, or a blocked ontology. |
| Type-correct but inert rewrite | All overread is removed, all heads are typed, and no practical guidance remains: the reader can see that local checks passed but cannot tell why the distinction matters, what to do, or which FPF pattern application or project-side FPF kind carries the claim being made. | Recover the didactic or recognition function in wording whose claim being made is recovered through the named FPF pattern, keep any Plain line mapped to the recovered Tech interpretation when both registers are current, state the remaining reader use, or demote the phrase to reduced-use cue, blocked use, or rewrite incomplete instead of treating the repair as complete. |
| Expressive overread rebound | A repair restores practical guidance with a memorable Plain or didactic line, but that line carries a claim not recoverable from the Tech fields, named FPF kind, recovered relation, project-side reference, disposition, or pattern application. | Map the line to the recovered Tech interpretation under E.10:6.2; use the FPF pattern that defines, constrains, or tests the claim; or demote the phrase to reduced-use cue, blocked use, or rewrite incomplete. |
| Pillar-blind precision pass | A broad cleanup proves trigger removal and kind recovery, but never checks whether E.2 P-2, E.6, E.8, or E.12 still let the intended reader see the working situation, why it matters, and what first useful move remains. | For FPF-governed Problem frames, Problem sections, recognition texts, examples, and worked slices, state the remaining reader use or FPF pattern application. Preserve intentional didactic metaphors when they are ordinary recognition aids or when their claim being made maps back to Tech. If the didactic function was harmed, repair the Plain wording so it maps back to the recovered Tech interpretation, or mark the rewrite incomplete instead of accepting type-correct but inert wording. |
| Source-companion header leakage | Carry a source-companion header into a pattern and let Authority: none or Current use define the new pattern. | State the pattern-use claim and authority claim in the pattern header and relations. |
| Pattern as procedure | Say the pattern is called, routed, invoked, or chained as if it were executable code. | Say that a practitioner uses or applies the pattern in a problem situation. If actual project activity is claimed, name the relevant work occurrence, method, decision, or action invitation; add actor or U.MethodDescription identity only when it changes the claim or its later use. |
| Strength metaphor | Say a claim is strong or weak without a recoverable comparison basis, such as a characteristic, threshold, evidence class, scope, gate condition, or use-boundary relation. | Name that basis, or replace the metaphor with the recovered use-boundary claim when that is what the sentence means. |