C.20:4.6 - Keep neighboring objects with their subject patterns
Keep the three boundaries explicit. A domain is a subject-area or catalogue designation. A semantic locality is the bounded use of exact local meanings under its effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, and direct F.17 pattern; it is not another holon or a discipline constituent by locality alone. A discipline is the exact field-level practice-and-knowledge whole recognized by the C.20 construction test. The same or similar word across domains or semantic localities establishes none of shared meaning, one discipline, parthood, or identity. When a use relies on a semantic crossing, state the two exact local senses and cite an F.9 Bridge only if its predicate obtains; field or locality difference alone creates no Bridge. Then test each discipline candidate independently; even an obtaining high-congruence Bridge does not merge its endpoints.
The historical five-position card remains a useful intake palette only if every member keeps its subject pattern and receives no automatic part or identity status. Its complete prompts were:
- canon candidates: theories, models, reference works, definitions, proof traditions, benchmark descriptions, and other epistemes treated as canonical;
- practice and standard candidates: accepted Methods, norms, standard procedures, measurement conventions, and admissible comparison rules;
- institutional and organizational candidates: journals, committees, curricula, professional bodies, laboratories, and other institutional arrangements that may carry or refresh field work;
- cross-locality candidates: exact F.9 Bridges, F.17 term or local-sense rows, Bridge descriptions, and loss observations used across semantic localities or source traditions;
- comparison candidates: exact Characteristics, Scales, Units, comparators, evidence policies, and CG-Spec declarations used to make a named comparison admissible.
The palette prevents those reader questions from disappearing; it is neither a required five-part decomposition nor a constructor. No category must be filled by ritual. Every exact item remains under the subject pattern below and becomes a C.20 part only when disciplinePartOf independently obtains.
| Apparent discipline content | Subject pattern and C.20 boundary |
|---|---|
| field or domain name | catalogue, designation, or wording pattern; the name is not the candidate or its construction |
| theory, model, canon item, definition, standard, or practice description | C.2.1 identifies the exact episteme; it becomes a discipline part only if a separate disciplinePartOf occurrence obtains |
| reusable method or method family | A.3.1 identifies each Method and B.1.5 any composite Method; use, registry membership, or family similarity is not discipline parthood |
| organization, laboratory, committee, journal operator, or professional body | A.1 identifies any system; its system-role assignments and Work stay direct; carrying or stewarding a discipline is not parthood |
| dated research, engineering, teaching, revision, evaluation, or governance work | A.15.1 identifies each Work occurrence; performing work about or within a discipline does not make the work or performer a part |
| selected organization of relations for one model use | A.22 identifies the dependent U.Structure; selection gives it no holonhood or discipline parthood |
| semantic Bridge | F.9 identifies an occurrence only after two exact F.17 SchemeSenseCell values resolve and its predicate obtains; a field or locality difference alone creates none, and the Bridge never joins its endpoint disciplines into one whole |
| structural correspondence | Use its direct governor; C.34 applies only to a declared architecture-preservation claim. A structural mapping establishes neither an F.9 Bridge nor one discipline. |
| comparison predicate, characteristic space, comparator, or aggregation | use C.16 for the measured values and A.19.CPM for the exact comparison; comparability is not a discipline constituent or identity condition unless a separate C.20 whole-forming claim makes an exact contribution current |
| publication, form, carrier, card, dashboard, registry, or bibliography | C.2.1, E.17, and E.24.PUB keep content, form, carrier, and availability separate; publication does not construct the field |
| evidence, provenance, currentness, assurance, gate, or authorization | use A.10 for evidence and provenance, G.11 for currentness, B.3 only for an actual named assurance claim, A.21 for gates, and the applicable decision pattern for authorization or choice claims; epistemic support changes no world-side part or identity fact |
Any entity in this table can become an actual part only when it is independently identified and the C.20 predicate separately obtains. Its ordinary association with the field is never enough.