C.22.2 - ProblemCard

Type: Calculus (C) Status: Stable Normativity: Normative

Plain name. Problem-side card.

Intent. Give a practitioner one compact C.2.1 episteme that turns a messy signal into reviewable problem-side claim content before Principles-to-Work or selector use. The card preserves practical formulation functions while every world-side relation, evidence use, decision, method, plan, and Work occurrence remains with its direct governor.

Use this when. Use this pattern when work starts from a signal, anomaly, drift, risk, hypothesis, stakeholder demand or concern, set-derived candidate, underused capability, new constraint, new environment, opportunity-like cue, or solution-shaped request, and a downstream task-typing, method-family, planning, evidence, gate, autonomy, or P2W use needs one reviewable problem-side episteme.

Do not use this when. Use another pattern directly when the current question is already actual PFR obtaining, task typing, method selection, Work planning, evidence, provenance, assurance, gate decision, autonomy, archive or selected-set governance, mathematical-lens use, or ordinary discussion with no receiving use. C.22.PFR governs the actual Problem; C.22 governs TaskSignature constitution and assignment.

Builds on. C.2.1, E.2, E.9, E.10, C.2.P, A.6.P, C.16.Q, C.16, A.19, C.22, C.25, C.29, G.5, G.9, A.6.3.RT, and A.6.4.

Coordinates with. C.11, C.18, C.19, C.22.1, C.22.PFR, C.24, C.27, C.28, A.15, A.15.5, A.21, E.16, G.6, G.11, A.10, B.3, E.17, E.17.ID.CR, A.6.3, F.9, E.18, E.18.1, C.32.P2S, and E.10.MOVE.

Boundary summary. C.22.2 yields one reviewable ProblemCard, a P2W-ready problem-side input for downstream C.22, or an honest stop naming the direct pattern for the claim, relation, or boundary now current. It yields no world-side Problem, task assignment, selected method, WorkPlan, Work occurrence, gate result, or evidence verdict.

C.2.1 constitution. One ProblemCard is one U.Episteme constituted by one exact ClaimGraph, one independently identified joint EntityOfConcern, and one effective U.ReferenceScheme. U.ClaimScope, assumptions, horizons, qualification windows, viewpoints, and receiving uses qualify only the exact claims and direct relations that need them. No setting, carrier, organization, card id, or publication is a fourth constitution component or identifies an actual Problem. An exact composite or component U.Work under A.15.6 may be referenced by a claim or receiving use; it neither constitutes the card nor identifies the Problem.

Claim-family, actuality, and solvability boundary. A card may carry several claims only while their ClaimGraph has that one joint EntityOfConcern. An actual-problem assertion states affirmative or negative polarity for the exact ProblematicForRelation obtaining predicate. An affirmative assertion may designate an independently established occurrence only when both participants and its adverse episode are established under C.22.PFR; negative polarity creates, ends, erases, or reidentifies no occurrence. A.10, with B.3 only for an actual named assurance claim, separately governs whether one receiving use treats the assertion as supported, refuted, or unresolved; G.11 separately governs assertion-edition currentness. Forecast, scenario, counterfactual, and anticipated-condition claims retain their exact assumptions, horizon, and direct governor and do not assert a current PFR. A method-availability or solvability claim concerns the admitted method set, evidence, constraints, and intended use; selecting a method changes that claim, not an independently obtaining PFR. Only non-adversity or cessation of the actual-condition or criterion-applicability participant can end its maximal continuous adverse episode; missing, stale, refuted, or absent evidence cannot.

C.22.2:1 - Problem Frame

A working team can begin with symptoms, anomalies, stakeholder signals, constraints, risks, old solution evidence, comparison ideas, solution temptations, underused capabilities, new environments, opportunity-like cues, or members of a retained set. Opportunity-like signals still need an exact EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, claim family, not-wish reason, improvement or acceptance probe, and honest next use; they do not turn this pattern into an ideation pattern.

Problematization becomes useful here when it produces claim content a practitioner can inspect. The card distinguishes the observed signal from the claim family being considered; the one joint EntityOfConcern from nearby affected entities; the effective scheme and scope from generic setting words; actual-PFR assertions from forecasts and solvability claims; and problem-side readiness from method, Work, gate, or evidence conclusions.

Current FPF already governs archive, pool, front, selected set, parity, refresh, method selection, evidence, autonomy, gate, representation transition, Bridge, mathematical-lens use, TaskSignature, and actual PFR obtaining. ProblemCard carries only the signal, problem-side claims, exact references, and next-use cues needed to reach those patterns without duplicating their objects.

The first-minute question is:

Can I state one exact concern, claim family, scheme, scope, improvement or acceptance probe, and honest next use without turning a signal, card field, setting label, evidence result, or proposed method into the actual Problem?

C.22.2:2 - Thin First Use and Output Kind

C.22.2:2.1 - Thin First-Use Form

The first substantive use is the Thin form. It is a practitioner-facing prompt for the smallest reviewable card, not a demand to complete a schema.

A ProblemCard is complete for its current use when it states:

1. what signal or cue made the practitioner stop;
2. the one exact joint EntityOfConcern, effective U.ReferenceScheme, and U.ClaimScope for the claims being carried;
3. which claim family is current: actual-PFR assertion, anticipated-condition claim, method-availability or solvability claim, or another directly governed problem-side claim;
4. why this is not merely a wish, ticket, slogan, label, or preselected Work request;
5. what would count as improvement or as an acceptance probe; and
6. one honest next use.

The next use may be P2W-ready, characterize, compare, search, refresh, retire, archive, abstainOrNoChange, or apply the direct pattern governing the named claim, relation, or boundary. If an improvement check or acceptance probe is absent, the card may preserve the signal and choose one of the other uses but cannot claim P2W-ready.

C.22.2 - ProblemCard is the pattern heading. A ProblemCard instance is the C.2.1 episteme described above. ProblemCardRef is only a reference value designating one such episteme; it is not another durable kind. Plain-register glosses and local labels do not replace the Tech name.

Local labels include problem-formulation follow-up reason, validation boundary, risk condition, solvability band, P2W-ready, reviewable, stale, refreshed, retired, archived, abstainOrNoChange, and firstPrinciplesCue. They describe claim content or a local disposition; they create no FPF kind, state-machine kind, gate result, relation occurrence, or mathematical-lens object.

Use E.10.MOVE only when move-like wording no longer denotes one of these local dispositions and instead hides a pattern-use recommendation, Work-entry readiness, performed Work, gate, transformation, source relation, architecture move, call-planning move, or another directly governed value.

Reference labels ending in Ref are reference positions, not kind names. This includes ProblemCardRef, sourceSetRef, rivalProblemFormulationRef, and representationOrWordingUseRelationRef.

Semantic locality comes from the exact EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, declared assumptions or window, and receiving use carried by the relevant claims. A broad domain, organization, practice, or location label is only recognition material until those exact values are recoverable. None becomes a container participant or establishes global Problem identity.

Plain gloss for P2W-ready: problem-side input ready. It means ready as input to downstream P2W or selector reasoning, not ready for Work execution, gate passage, method selection, evidence reliance, or autonomy.

When a downstream reader asks whether intended Work can enter a work boundary, the card may supply problem-side cues, acceptance probes, constraints, and freshness conditions, but A.15.5 governs the readiness relation. C.22.2 decides no full-kit preparation, commitment, launch gate, or performed Work.

C.22.2:2.2 - Required Solution Use

The Solution turns observed signal material into one C.2.1 episteme and one governed next use, not a completed form.

1. Capture the symptom, anomaly, risk, stakeholder cue, drift, hypothesis, or other observed signal before naming an actual Problem.
2. Recover the one joint EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, and claim family. If the claims concern unrelated entities, split the ClaimGraph and card.
3. Separate the signal detector, actual-PFR assertion if independently grounded, anticipated-condition claim, improvement check, candidate acceptance criterion, method-availability claim, monitored risk signal, and proxy-distortion risk. These are not one card status or one PFR participant set.
4. Pay only for current complexity. Add conditional content only when it changes the current next use; otherwise stop at the lighter card or name the direct pattern for the claim now current.
5. If the formulation changes EntityOfConcern, effective scheme, ClaimScope, diagram, functional description, or transformation-flow interpretation, name the representation-transition, retargeting, Bridge, structural-reinterpretation, or wording-use relation before inheriting an earlier card disposition.
6. Close by the honest next use. A filled card without a truthful next use is not a successful result.

Cheap stop. The smallest card that gives a truthful next use is sufficient. A conforming use does not require heavier fields merely because the full inventory exists.

First practitioner use. State the signal, joint EntityOfConcern, scheme, scope, claim family, not-wish reason, improvement check or acceptance probe, and honest next use. Open the relation-boundary aid only when another claim or relation changes that move.

C.22.2:2.3 - Relation Boundary Aid

Use this aid only after the Thin ProblemCard is legible: signal, joint EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, claim family, not-wish reason, improvement check or acceptance probe, and honest next use. It is not a second writing order and not a catalogue of other patterns. It answers one question:

Which claim being made, relation, or boundary changes the problem-card use, and which FPF pattern defines or constrains that claim, relation, or boundary?

If the claim, relation, or boundary does not change the current problem-card use, leave it out of the card. If it does change the move, keep only the local cue or reference that makes the card reviewable, then apply the subject pattern for that claim, relation, or boundary.

Over-capture symptom: the practitioner spends the pattern use classifying FPF patterns while one or more core Thin items in C.22.2:2.1 remain unstable.

Repair: return to the exact Thin form in C.22.2:2.1 and complete only its core items. Reopen this aid only for the claim, relation, or boundary that changes the honest next use.

C.22.2:2.4 - Use Boundaries and Record Budgets

Use C.22.2 when a signal is not yet a problem-side record and downstream task typing, P2W, method-family selection, work planning, evidence use, gate passage, autonomy control, or selected-set use depends on such a record. A known method does not close this pattern when the problem signal, scope, acceptance probe, or EntityOfConcern remains unstable.

Use another pattern directly when the question under repair is already that pattern’s EntityOfConcern or governed relation: A.15 for work planning or performed work; A.10, G.6, or B.3 for evidence, provenance, or assurance; A.21 for gate decision; E.16 for autonomy; C.11 for a local choice among explicit options; and C.18, C.19, or G.5 for archive, pool, front, or selected-set governance. C.22.2 may still preserve the problem-side cue or reference that explains why that pattern is now current.

Use record budgets:

• Thin record budget: signal, joint EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, exact claim family, not-wish, not-slogan, not-ticket, or not-preselected-work reason, provisional improvement check or acceptance probe, and one honest next use.
• Standard record budget: Thin fields plus the current comparison, acceptance, risk, validation, freshness, unknown-handling, or P2W-readiness fields needed for downstream use.
• High-relation record budget: Standard fields plus only the relation references needed when public, disputed, high-risk, set-derived, cross-scheme, cross-use-boundary, evidence-adjacent, autonomy-adjacent, gate-adjacent, agentic, temporal, causal, representation, or Part-G relations are current.

Stop at Thin when it gives a truthful next use. Stop at Standard when it supplies enough problem-side input for a minimal TaskSignature, TaskKind, or ProblemProfile under C.22. Apply the governing FPF pattern for the claim being made, relation, or boundary instead of enlarging the card when the issue under repair is no longer the problem-side record itself.

C.22.2:2.5 - Field Labels and Current-Use Conditions

Use these readable labels only when current for the case:

• problem signal and exact signal reference;

• one exact ClaimGraph, joint EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme, and ClaimScope;

• actual-PFR assertion with exact polarity and PFR reference only when C.22.PFR independently establishes the occurrence;

• anticipated-condition, forecast, scenario, or counterfactual claim with assumptions and horizon;

• method-availability or solvability claim with admitted method set, evidence qualification, constraints, and intended use;

• primary viewpoint or an explicitly recovered system-role-kind, assignment, relation-participation, responsibility, or other direct concern as claim qualification, never as card or PFR identity;

• symptom detector, problem hypothesis or cause-theory cue, and rival formulation when current;

• improvement check, acceptance probe, characterization relation, characteristic or Q-bundle relation, indicator selection, and parity or comparison relation when current;

• mandatory constraints, risk condition, validation boundary, freshness or expiry condition, and unknown handling;

• problem-formulation follow-up reason when it changes review, discrimination, or receiving use;

• representation-transition, retargeting, Bridge, structural-reinterpretation, or wording-use reference when an earlier disposition may no longer transfer;

• sourceSetRef, source-set kind, selection or retention criterion, budget or window, and non-scalar next use when the signal comes from a set, pool, front, archive, shortlist, or selected set;

• firstPrinciplesCue when a mathematical structure changes the formulation; and

• subject-pattern cue naming the direct pattern, claim kind, exact receiving-use reference, and stop condition when an outside claim changes the card use.

If a conditional value is not current, omit it rather than writing unknown. Use unknown only where the exact current value rule permits that result. If a required current value is unavailable, state whether the next use is blocked, degraded, sandboxed, or must be reconsidered under a named condition. A stale value gets the exact G.11/currentness assertion; an intentionally omitted value states the record-budget reason without implying it was checked.

When the card compares options, retained candidates, or rival formulations, it states the exact comparison or parity relation or why comparison is not current. Absence is a disposition, not an automatic defect; any positive parity or selected-set result remains outside C.22.2.

problemCardWitnessRefs may be used as a local recoverability group, not as a new kind or evidence graph:

problemCardWitnessRefs:
  problemSignalRef?
  sourceSetRef?
  selectionOrRetentionCriterion?
  characterizationRelationRef?
  parityRelationRef?
  freshnessRef?
  representationOrWordingUseRelationRef?

Generated variants, evaluator feedback, and open-ended mutation remain signal or source-set cues. They do not constitute the card, supply evidence sufficiency, make PFR obtain, or authorize action.

C.22.2:2.6 - Anti-Pattern Checks and Worked Slices

Anti-pattern checks start from the local card use:

• card-as-executable-work request: the card is treated as executable work while method, plan, and work occurrence remain undecided;
• form-completion: every field is filled because the template exists, even though the Thin next use would be truthful;
• readiness shortcut: P2W-ready is declared from signal and scope alone, without improvement check or acceptance probe;
• source-claim shortcut: a preselected solution, work request, proof-looking reference, gate-looking cue, or authority-looking cue replaces one or more core Thin items in C.22.2:2.1;
• scalar shortcut: archive, set-return, Goldilocks, NQD, OEE, partial-order, stepping-stone, or indicator material collapses into one readiness score;
• prestige shortcut: first-principles or mathematical wording is kept without practical payoff, preserved and lost structure when current, problem-formulation follow-up reason, and stop condition.

Local stop rule: if the encountered material tries to carry a claim outside C.22.2, the card keeps only the cue or reference that changes problem formulation or the next use, then names the governing FPF pattern and claim kind named by value to use before that claim is relied on.

A conforming C.22.2 use is testable against at least one Thin worked slice, such as repeated task rework or another compact problem signal, showing signal, EntityOfConcern, ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, exact claim family, not-preselected-work reason, improvement check, and honest next use. It is also testable against at least one High-relation worked slice from a set, archive, pool, front, shortlist, selected set, or portfolio source, showing sourceSetRef, candidate acceptance criterion, risk condition, and the claim, relation, or boundary without creating a local portfolio or archive kind.

C.22.2:2.7 - Conformance Checklist Requirements

The checklist protects a completed or reviewed card from overread; the writing order remains the Thin form and honest next use.

C.22.2:3 - Problem-Kind Recovery

Problem remains an ordinary word when no FPF-governed claim is being made. Recover it only when wording changes a governed kind, relation, selector use, evidence claim, causal-use claim, assurance claim, decision, or use boundary.

The card may reference candidate ProblemProfile, TaskSignature, source set, PFR, forecast, solvability claim, or first-principles cue only when that reference changes its use. No reference is promoted into a local kind or card constitution component.

C.22.2:4 - Problem, Task, Method, Work, and Result Split

ProblemCard remains usable while a method is unknown, contested, or not yet selected. A known method does not make the card ready while any core Thin item in C.22.2:2.1 remains unstable. If the problem-side episteme and method are accepted and only planned execution remains, apply A.15.

Use C.22 to prepare the TaskSignature from the exact problem-side episteme or ProblemProfile needed by one receiving use. Assert an assignment only when one TaskSignature is adequate for that use and C.22’s obtaining rule holds. If several profiles or signatures remain plausible, preserve candidates rather than asserting one assignment. When the question becomes selection, planning, performed Work, result, gate, evidence, or reliance, apply its governor instead of expanding the card.

C.22.2:5 - Relation to C.22

C.22 governs TaskSignature constitution and TaskSignatureAssignmentRelation. ProblemCard is earlier and explicit: it states which problem-side claims are ready for P2W, search, comparison, characterization, refresh, retirement, or another direct pattern.

A card may prepare TaskKind, characteristic bindings, scope, and candidate TaskSignatures. C.22 assigns one only when the exact problem-side episteme, TaskSignature, and receiving-use episteme satisfy its obtaining rule. Several plausible signatures remain candidates.

No card detail is copied wholesale into TaskSignature. Downstream method, Work, result, evidence, gate, autonomy, archive, portfolio, and selected-set claims remain with their direct patterns.

C.22.2:6 - Characterization, Indicators, and Comparability

ProblemCard states either a recoverable characterization relation and comparability or parity relation, or an explicit current reason why the problem can proceed without one.

The heavy content stays with existing FPF patterns:

• C.16 carries measurement characterization, backing, and comparability discipline;
• A.19 carries characteristic, scale, unit, polarity, and indicator-use discipline;
• C.25 carries Q-bundles and quality-like multi-characteristic bundles;
• G.9 carries parity, comparison-window, comparator, budget, unit, repeatability, and reproducibility pins;
• G.0 carries comparison-frame and CG-Spec governance;
• G.4 carries acceptance clauses and threshold predicates;
• use G.5 for selector-facing selected-set result declaration when the problem enters a selected set; when actual audience availability is separately current, use E.17 for a source-backed publication face and return to source and E.24.PUB for the publication occurrence, form, carrier, audience, bounded use, and availability.

Missing characterization or parity relation is a current disposition. When that relation is current, apply the characterization, parity, search, or pool pattern before treating the problem as ready for P2W.

The C.22.2 candidate acceptance criterion separates functional check, constraint compliance, risk or safety boundary, parity or comparison relation, and freshness window when those relations are current. Comparison frame, CG-Spec, or comparability governance is governed by G.0. Acceptance clauses and acceptance threshold predicates apply G.4; C.22.2 may name only the needed relation, cue, or reference. Passing a test, improving one observed indicator value, or naming an acceptance phrase is not by itself sufficient for P2W use.

C.22.2:7 - Source Record-Form Recovery

Source record names are recovered by use, not by label shape. This section prevents source prose from becoming local C.22.2 subobjects.

The repair rule is short: if the source material supplies problem-side material, copy the material into the card’s current fields. If it supplies another FPF-governed claim, keep only the local cue and apply the pattern that defines or constrains that claim.

C.22.2:8 - Portfolio, Archive, and Set-Return Treatment

Archive, portfolio, pool, front, shortlist, selected-set, and set-return material remain source and set cues for the current problem-side record. ProblemCard preserves sourceSetRef, source-set kind, selection or retention criterion, and the non-scalar next use when current; portfolio and archive governance stays with the named subject patterns and does not become a local problem-card kind.

Archive, portfolio, palette, front, shortlist, ranked shortlist, selected set, LivePool, and set-return material remain current source distinctions, but their current FPF subject patterns are already available:

A singleton problem card is the degenerate case. If it came from a portfolio, front, archive, or pool, the selected problem remains traceable through sourceSetRef: the lightweight reference to the source-set kind, source reference, selection or retention criterion, budget or window, review cadence, and direct pattern when current. sourceSetRef is a reference field, not a new kind and not a downstream claim carrier.

sourceSetRef preserves the recoverable set-source relation when current: Palette, Front, Archive, ExplorationArchive, Shortlist, RankedShortlist, SelectedSet, LivePool, or another accepted source-set form. If the set-source relation is not recoverable, the card may keep a set-finding cue, but it does not claim selected-set readiness or archive-derived readiness.

When multiple plausible problem formulations remain current, C.22.2 does not bind one TaskSignature prematurely. Each optional rivalProblemFormulationRef states the rival formulation, EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, preserved concern, lost concern, reason not selected yet, and next discrimination action. It is not a CG-Frame, not the E.8 Problem Frame, and not a representation-frame kind. The next discrimination action may be to characterize, compare, retarget, reopen the source material or source relation, choose a local problem formulation, or apply the relation-bearing pattern. Reframing is triggered when EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, viewpoint qualification, or cause-theory cue changes the problem representation enough that readiness or use-boundary cannot be inherited by wording continuity.

C.22.2:9 - Goldilocks and Set-Return Docking

Goldilocks problem selection is the problem-side adaptation of the current NQD, OEE, and set-return family. It is not direct QD or OEE vocabulary import, not a new scalar readiness doctrine, not a local QD or OEE vocabulary, and not a single score. C.22.2 does not mint GoldilocksProblem, GoldilocksScore, GoldilocksReadiness, or any equivalent local kind; Goldilocks remains a readiness and selection interpretation carried by current subject patterns.

A Goldilocks, stepping-stone, or archive-derived problem is represented by its source-set reference, selection or retention criterion, and current next use, not by one difficulty, priority, or readiness score.

ProblemCard carries only the problem-side readiness fields and relation references:

• source set kind when archive, pool, front, shortlist, selected set, or portfolio language is current;
• solvability band;
• characteristic-space, declared problem-side characteristic descriptor, or Q-bundle relation;
• declared difference criterion when novelty or diversity is claimed, or apply the governing characterization or comparison pattern;
• non-scalar trade-off, dominance, partial-order, or set-return relation when that relation is being made;
• measurability or explicit unknown handling;
• reversibility or containment for safe probing when current;
• stepping-stone option value when retention matters;
• expiry or refresh condition;
• selected-set, archive, pool, front, or parity relation when that relation is being made.

The local solvability band label means a scheme-and-scope-qualified, non-scalar interpretation of feasible-but-not-trivial fit under current capability, constraints, validation boundary, and optional set-return relation. It is not a universal difficulty claim, hidden readiness scale, or single-score ranking.

If the band cannot be tied to a characteristic, Q-bundle, comparison, retention, or capability relation and its qualification, treat Goldilocks wording as informal recognition only and bind any selection, set-return, or parity claim to its direct governor.

The current governing family is C.18, C.19, G.5, G.9, G.11, A.6.P:7a, and C.16.Q. Its relation to C.22:15 concerns entry and timing inside the same family: C.22.2 uses it before P2W, while C.22:15 uses it downstream when candidate solutions for a TaskKind make TaskSignature informative.

C.22.2:10 - Structure Cue That Improves Formulation

C.29 carries mathematical-lens use for first-principles or mathematical structure cues used by ProblemCard.

firstPrinciplesCue is a local cue label for a formulation-changing structure and a cue to apply C.29; it is not a local mathematical-lens kind or a substitute for a C.29 lens-use result.

The problem card may ask whether a first-principles or mathematical structure helps find or improve the problem formulation, not only whether an already-mentioned mathematical expression helps the problem formulation. Useful cues include state space, graph, boundary, topology, symmetry, invariant, variational or constrained-optimization structure, probability or information structure, resource bound, obstruction, scale window, composition, or coarse-graining choice.

The practitioner-facing use is:

State the structure that improves the problem formulation, the preserved structure, the lost structure, the practical payoff, the problem-formulation follow-up reason, and the stop condition.

Distribution by principles:

When no useful mathematical structure survives, record that absence and proceed without forcing mathematical prose into the problem card.

C.22.2:11 - Validation, Reliance, AI-Agent Cues, and Safe Probing

ProblemCard exposes three local fields for downstream use:

• problem-formulation follow-up reason: why this formulation is worth keeping, reviewing, discriminating, or moving onward now;
• validation boundary: what has been checked for the current next use, what may be used now, and which use is governed by another pattern;
• risk condition: the monitored risk, cost-of-error concern, or containment concern that may change the safe next action.

Use these fields to state a local reliance disposition, not to authorize downstream action.

Cause-theory cues may focus problem formulation inside ProblemCard. Association, intervention, counterfactual, responsibility, expected-effect, or causal-evidence claims are governed by C.28 plus evidence, provenance, or assurance patterns when those claims are being made.

Environment design and safe probing may appear as problem signal reference, validation boundary, risk condition, or subject-pattern cue. If the next action can affect a controlled EntityOfConcern, the card names the probe need plus the claim kind named by value that blocks local action; any deontic permission, work authorization, release authorization, or gate passage stays with the subject pattern for that claim.

C.22.2:12 - Freshness, Expiry, and Unknown Handling

C.22.2 includes a section-local state and disposition vocabulary for ProblemCard; this vocabulary is not a new FPF kind. These labels describe the card’s current governed use; they are not required states in a transition sequence, event kinds, or gate records. The local labels are:

Freshness names the exact affected locus: problem signal, effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, characterization or parity relation, problem-formulation reason, source material, source relation, source-set reference, representation relation, or wording-use relation. For the problem signal, ask whether it is still present, recurring, solved, absorbed, duplicate, unnecessary, or no longer worth downstream work. For ReferenceScheme or ClaimScope, ask whether the applicable meaning, cut, assumptions, window, or receiving use changed enough to alter the formulation. For characterization or parity, ask whether measurement, comparison, and parity relations are current enough for the intended use. For the formulation reason, source material, or source relation, ask whether cited sources, provenance, reason references, and source references remain current. For a source set, ask whether archive, front, pool, shortlist, or selected-set membership and its selection or retention criterion remain current. For a representation or wording-use relation, ask whether wording, diagram, functional description, transformation-flow path, Bridge, retargeting, or other representation change alters the EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, viewpoint qualification, comparison relation, governed next use, or relation needed for inheritance.

A stale source material, source relation, or evidence reference does not always retire the problem; it may require refresh while the problem remains reviewable. A stale problem signal may lead to refresh, retire, archive, abstain or no-change, or a subject-pattern cue for the claim, relation, or boundary that is checked.

Freshness or expiry failure is a current disposition. A stale or unknown-bearing problem card may remain reviewable as a problem-side record, but it does not become P2W-ready unless freshness and unknown handling permit the intended downstream use. A stale problem card does not silently remain usable as P2W input.

When freshness, expiry, or unknown handling fails, choose one of these current dispositions:

• refresh the problem card or its characterization or comparison relation under G.11, C.16, A.19, C.25, or G.9;
• retire or deprecate the problem-side record under the relevant archive, pool, selected-set, or refresh pattern;
• continue only as explicitly governed bounded-risk use under the subject pattern for the claim being made, relation, or boundary.

Unknown-handling fields state whether they permit use, require degraded use, abstention, or sandbox treatment, or make the current problem formulation blocked. No P2W, no change, or abstain-for-now may be a successful next use when the signal is stale, duplicate, already solved, already absorbed, unnecessary, or not currently worth downstream work. Before using the ProblemCard as input to TaskSignature preparation or assignment under C.22, check whether the problem signal is still present and whether prior work has already solved or removed the problem.

C.22.2:13 - Representation and Wording-Use Relation Continuity

C.22.2 names A.6.3.RT, A.6.4, E.17, F.9, E.18, and E.10 only when changed problem formulations, diagrams, functional descriptions, transformation-flow paths, wording, or PathSlice examples carry a current representation, bridge, retargeting, structural-reinterpretation, or wording-use claim. The card may preserve the local cue, reference, or problem-formulation follow-up reason, but it does not prove continuity or use-boundary inheritance by wording similarity.

Framing is not wording repair. A framing change applies when EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, viewpoint qualification, comparison relation, use-boundary inheritance, or honest next use changes. Wording-use repair is current only when wording, diagram, functional description, transformation-flow path, Bridge, retargeting, or another representation change alters the carried problem-side representation, EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme, ClaimScope, viewpoint qualification, comparison relation, governed next use, or subject-pattern cue. Ordinary wording cleanup triggers no representation-continuity relation and does not block a Thin ProblemCard.

C.22.2 may not treat changed-problem examples as governed relations unless the appropriate accepted FPF relation is named.

C.22.2:14 - Source and P2W Carry-Forward

Apply the following source details as constraints on C.22.2 use and its P2W-facing input.