E.10.ARCH:2 - Distribution architecture

The standing construction is:

1. The author applies F.19 to the whole span and uses the compact E.10 cues to locate an FPF-governed wording use. Close it locally when the object and predicate are recoverable; otherwise select the defining or testing rule, controlled precision-reduction pattern, durable-name application, or fail-closed non-use disposition.
2. The E.10.ARCH text contains the shared recovery algorithm and the WordingUseRestorationApplicabilityTable.
3. The author applies the bounded entry, realization pattern, or direct subject rule selected through E.10:0.2a and the applicability table below. The selected content unpacks the wording for one named semanticArea and its ontologicalNeighborhood. Use A.6.P.WMR after generic relation recovery only when one Method and Work boundary claim remains hidden; use A.6.RCD only after exact participants are recovered and no current direct relation or already admitted local relation-bearing claim closes the receiving claim.
4. Additional applicability rows, and only when needed additional realization patterns, appear when repeated FPF-governed wording hides a stable primary-EntityOfConcern use field set, a stable recovery shape, and a useful remaining reader use that no existing subject pattern already carries.
5. E.8 defines pattern-form and placement requirements for wording such as pattern nest, and requires authoring prose that uses ontologicalNeighborhood to expose the relevant semanticAreaBaseConcept, semanticArea, and semanticAreaSenseFamily rather than treating neighborhood as the semantic unit.
6. An author or reviewer uses E.19 to check that authored pattern hosts preserve this distribution and do not keep rival first-stage repair doctrine.

This architecture keeps E.10 compact. It also keeps subject patterns centered on their own primary EntityOfConcern values, decisions, characteristics, structures, mathematical lenses, consequences, and worked uses.

E.10.ARCH:2.1 - EntityOfConcern and recurring hidden-field distribution

For wording such as EntityOfInterest, EoI, EoIClass, describedEntity, DescribedEntityRef, and primary described entity, or for selected EntityOfConcern-family heads such as EntityOfConcern, entityOfConcernRef, EntityOfConcernRef, EntityOfConcernClass, and publicationUnitPrimaryEntityOfConcern, the repair is distributed by the current FPF-governed use:

EntityOfInterest, EoI, EoIClass, describedEntity, DescribedEntityRef, and primary described entity are active repair triggers. FPF-governed wording must recover the EntityOfConcern-family use named by value, publication-unit primary-EoC or ordinary primary-subject use, or local FPF kind, then rewrite to EntityOfConcern, entityOfConcernRef, EntityOfConcernRef, EntityOfConcernClass, publicationUnitPrimaryEntityOfConcern, publicationUnitPrimarySubject for the E.17.AUD.OOTD primary-subject use, or the local FPF kind named by value. For the non-claim-bearing case, use the kind named by value or plain topic or subject without inventing an EntityOfConcernRef. If no use is recoverable by value, the wording remains quoted source or trigger wording and cannot be used for reliance.

• C.2.1 defines episteme identity and the identified EntityOfConcern participant of EpistemeConstitutionRelation; A.6.5 defines EntityOfConcernSlot only inside a reusable constitution RelationSignature; direct reference rules define or constrain entityOfConcernRef, EntityOfConcernRef, and related reference use.
• C.2.P carries episteme, publication, source-wording, and source-relation precision restoration when the sentence still hides source wording, claim-bearing episteme, publication construction, publication-form construction, project-side reliance, pattern-application wording, or use or non-use disposition.
• F.18 carries durable naming, selected head settlement, and source-string and durable-name discipline after the kind under repair and use are recovered.
• C.2.P defines and E.17.AUD uses the union field publicationUnitPrimaryEntityOfConcern: the carried EntityOfConcern or the non-claim-bearing kind, topic, or subject value. E.17.AUD.OOTD governs its separate local publicationUnitPrimarySubject for one bounded publication unit with one carried move and one outside-work boundary. Only when the unit carries one identified episteme E and the subject is the exact entity that its claims concern may publicationUnitPrimarySubject = EntityOfConcern(E) be stated. Neither field adds a participant to EpistemeConstitutionRelation, and the fields are not aliases.
• A.6.3, its retained entityOfConcernRef-preserving specializations, and A.6.4 carry preservation or retargeting of the EntityOfConcern across episteme morphisms.
• When an evidence, assurance, gate, work, decision, architecture, characteristic, mathematical-lens, or project-side claim is already recoverable, use the rule that defines or constrains that exact claim or its admissible-use boundary.

This selected-family case is the standing example for recurring hidden-field architecture. When a new hidden-field family recurs, do not add local warning prose to every pattern. Use an existing defining or testing rule when one fits, add one applicability row when shared recovery is needed, and justify a new realization pattern only when the hidden field set, recovery apparatus, and remaining reader use recur across FPF-governed texts.

E.10.ARCH:2.2 - Ontic-Level and Facet-Level Restoration Distribution

Use this distribution before adding or specializing a wording-use precision-restoration pattern.

E.10 is the shared recognition scan. The author uses it to identify an FPF wording-use problem and choose the first applicable restoration or the rule that already defines or tests the recovered object or claim. E.10.ARCH supplies the distribution rule. A specialized restoration pattern contains only the defining content for stable ontological recovery in one selected ontic, semantic area, or high-pressure facet.

When the governed object, exact direct relation, claim-bearing episteme, representation use, or claim kind is already recoverable by value, use its defining, constraining, or testing rule directly and cite the pattern containing that rule. A clear A.3.4, A.6.F, C.29, E.18, C.30, A.15, A.10, gate, decision, publication, or evidence claim needs no restoration detour merely because a familiar trigger word appears.

For bare claim-bearing role, use E.10.ROLE to recover the sentence’s work-facing or use-facing object and stop when one exact object or relation and its defining rule are clear. Use A.6.RSIR only for the narrower relation-signature-interface-assignment-slot cluster, including direct-relation, declaration, interface, operation, and representation branches recovered under E.10.ROLE. After selection, the recovered object’s rule defines the content and its pattern ID locates that rule.

For claim-bearing learn, learning, learned, taught, or trained wording, use E.10.LRN only while the participant, changed subject, Work, Method, result, evidence, or receiving use is hidden. Return the corrected or split claims to their direct subject patterns.

For claim-bearing development, develop, evolution, evolve, progress, growth, maturation, adaptation, or lineage wording, use E.10.DEV only while the changed or represented subject, needed continuity or membership, posture, direction or value claim, direct owner, or receiving use is hidden. Use E.10.MOVE afterward only when a separately relied-on trajectory, route, path, order, posture, or representation remains ambiguous. Use an ontic-level restoration pattern only when recurring wording hides a candidate durable ontology unit whose primary governed subject kind, stable identity, core direct relation, named neighboring direct relations, and subject patterns need joint recovery before wording repair. The restoration recovers the exact current governed objects and direct relation uses; it does not treat declaration-local SlotKinds or assertion-side participant designations as parts of the ontic.

Use E.24.CD only when recurring wording exposes a candidate subject that may need an E.24 ontic-introduction decision: a potential primary governed subject kind, stable identity, core direct relation, named neighboring direct relations, and action-facing gain that no existing rule already carries. Use E.24.PUB only when the repair must distinguish ontic, ontic-description episteme, publication form, view, record, card, table, schema, data-structure expression, rendering, or source relation. If A.22, A.19, C.30, A.3.4, C.2.1, or another pattern already contains the defining or testing rule for the recovered object or claim, use that rule directly and cite E.24.CD or E.24.PUB only for the relevant thin boundary.

Use a facet-level restoration pattern only when one recurring facet cuts across several ontics or subject patterns and has its own stable ambiguity. Function-like wording under A.6.F is the standing example: function wording may point to transformation behavior, performed-work action or another actor-side claim under an exact direct governor, a separately typed architecture or other influence source under its exact relation, mathematical function, module allocation, capability, quality, role, work, method, evidence, assurance, gate, or decision. That facet is too broad to duplicate inside every ontic-level restoration pattern and too specific to leave as ordinary prose.

Do not create one precision-restoration pattern per relation-participant meaning or declaration-local SlotKind. A separate restoration pattern is justified only when the same ambiguity recurs across several patterns, changes the selected FPF kind or direct relation use, and would otherwise force repeated first-stage repair prose. Otherwise use the rule that defines the direct relation and apply A.6.5 only when reusable declaration is current.

When both an ontic-level restoration pattern and a facet restoration pattern are applicable, apply them by recovered question, not by word order. The ontic-level pattern asks which candidate subject, governed objects, core and neighboring direct relations, and subject patterns are current. The facet pattern asks how the overloaded facet word is assigned after that recovery. For example, transformation wording that includes function, functional, or functioning may use a transformation-ontic restoration pattern to recover U.Transformation, TransformationFlowStructure, its exact participants and direct relations, or FunctioningRef?; detailed function-kind discrimination remains with A.6.F.

A conforming specialized restoration pattern states:

• the ontic, semantic area, or facet-neighborhood under repair;
• the recognition wording family selected by E.10;
• the recovered object, any direct relation use, any current claim-bearing episteme or representation, the rule that defines or constrains each, and the pattern ID that locates that rule;
• the defining, constraining, or testing rule to use directly when the value is already recoverable;
• any facet restoration pattern whose ClaimGraph defines or constrains a narrower recurring ambiguity;
• the temporary recovery product and the retained user-facing move after wording repair.

E.10.ARCH:2.3 - DPF-local application

When authoring or maintaining a DPF, use this shared method only when the E.4.DPF entry condition holds: recurring domain wording obstructs a named reader use. Identify the domain object or relation, the relied claim, and its use boundary in the affected DPF subject pattern; use E.10.ARCH for the recovery method and F.19 for the final plain technical rewrite. Semantic synthesis and wording restoration remain separate: restoration preserves the meaning of an identified claim in the current DPF edition; it neither establishes nor revises that claim.

Write the resulting domain entry beside the DPF claim whose wording it restores. The entry identifies the recurring wording, the relied DPF claim, the DPF edition in which that claim is current, the recovered domain object or relation, the surviving reader use, the repaired wording, and the condition that reopens either the entry or its relied claim. Add a negative or non-use boundary only under the F.19 plausible-intended-reader test; it is not a required entry field. Do not copy the domain trigger into the FPF-wide applicability table. One isolated wording failure stays a local F.19 rewrite, a compact E.10 route, or a direct rewrite under the DPF claim’s defining or constraining rule.

Identify a separate DPF-local profile only when several entries are consumed together by a named maintained use. Identify the profile as a claim-bearing episteme, state its receiving use and edition, and keep the constituent entries independently revisable; if a table publishes the profile, keep the table as its publication form. Existing local profiles remain local applications of this method.

If the attempted repair exposes a missing or unstable domain distinction, stop the wording route. Return to the DPF source, semantic-synthesis, or content decision that can establish the missing claim; only then resume the wording repair.