C.3:6 - Decision Split
| Current question | Subject pattern |
|---|---|
| What kind does this claim quantify over, and what makes it the same kind later? | C.3 and C.3.1; use candidate domain, membership distinction, and continuity rule |
| Does one kind count as a subkind of another for this declared applicability? | C.3.1; distinguish criterion entailment, exhaustive closed-domain evaluation, classification equivalence, and kind identity |
| May this candidate be evaluated under this declaration and slice? | C.3.2 admissibility; not-applicable forms no three-valued judgment |
| Does this admissible candidate satisfy this kind under this declaration edition and slice? | C.3.2 returns true, false, or unknown |
| Does a receiving use need the represented set of true members? | C.3.2; C.29 when the representation itself changes a claim-bearing use |
| Does the target slice belong to the assertion’s declared claim scope? | A.2.6 for its U.ClaimScope; do not attach that scope to the kind |
| Did the practice, source, team, or other locality change? | Compare exact kind definitions. Reuse the same kind when its distinction continues. Use C.3.3 only after two distinct kinds and a proposed correspondence are independently present |
| Did only the declaration’s effective reference scheme change? | C.2.1 for another episteme and the separate edition-continuity test; A.6.0 and C.3.2 for signature qualification; C.3.1 for kind continuity and any renewed subkind test; the scheme is not a kind or relation-occurrence identity key |
| Did only the context slice change? | C.3.2 for another applicability check, judgment input, and possible extension; the slice alone creates no bridge |
Is this kind proposed as another durable public FPF U.* kind? | E.24.UK, followed by applicable naming patterns |
| Is a candidate, quality, relation, construction, episteme, status, publication occurrence, or Work being identified? | Its direct subject pattern; C.3 consumes that result and does not create it by classification notation |
When typed reasoning is part of a structural construction-to-representation passage from a constructive representation or working model to a target kind or logical representation, cite StructuralCT2RTypingGroundingUnfoldingStructureBlock from B.3.5. C.3 contributes only the kind, admissibility and judgment, subkind, and bridge loci inside that B.3.5-governed local A.22.CGUS specialization. It does not create separate unfolding-structure authority and does not make a constructive trace, working-model relation, proof, evidence relation, or classification true by label. For general diagnostic recovery from an inadequate working account to the exact subject construction, use A.7.1; classification remains one possible locus rather than a general ontology-return method.
The unfolding is admitted only when the block names the starting representation, target kind or logical representation, current bridge when one is used, preserved structure, lost or collapsed structure, CL or CL^k, admissible reuse, blocked substitution, and the proof or evidence subject pattern when that stronger claim is current.