E.10.ARCH:3.1 - Method, work, and P2W claim-rule constellation in wording restoration

Use this branch when one source label, project handle, or project concern points to changing, producing, selecting, deriving, controlling, or maintaining an EntityOfConcern rather than to one typed FPF value.

For the naming choice between method, practice, culture and other contextual synonyms, apply E.10:0.2c.21a. A.3.1 already recovers the reusable way from the actual claim. When that meaning is clear, use the chosen explanatory name and return to F.19; the synonym itself opens no further restoration.

Do not name a new recovery object. Recover each current value and claim separately: one locally used U.Method; a U.MethodDescription episteme that describes that method; exact method-side relations and, only when a named use depends on their organization, the A.22-selected structure locally designated MethodRelationStructure; a mechanism or formal-substrate declaration; a mathematical-lens or other representation use; a U.WorkPlan; dated U.Work; an actual transformation; a production, inception, or completion claim; a changed-referent relation; a measurement, evaluation, choice, or decision result; an evidence, source, gate, publication, temporal, delivery, or acceptance relation; a selected structure; an obtaining C.30 ArchitectureRelation with its actual holon and structure participants; a separate ArchitectureClaim episteme; an architecture-description episteme only when that use is current; or another object named under its defining or testing rule. A.15 keeps system-role classification, assignment, Method, MethodDescription, WorkPlan, dated Work, and F.6 attribution separate. Unresolved role wording still uses E.10.ROLE.

When wording concerns a relation among methods or method families, recover the relation itself—for example, serial or parallel composition, guarded choice, iteration, refinement, substitution, decomposition, parameterization, family membership, selection, or fallback. Use A.3.1, G.5, or the rule that defines or constrains that relation. If a named use depends on how several such relations are organized, use A.22’s criterion to select the structure and call it MethodRelationStructure locally; that name creates neither a U-kind nor another relation. A graph, algebra, tuple, or other notation is a C.29 representation or mathematical-lens use of the structure, not itself a Method. A claim-bearing episteme that describes the relation remains separate from it. U.MethodDescription still means an episteme that describes one Method. Do not classify one value as both U.Method and U.Mechanism unless the defining rules for those two kinds independently admit both claims.

The authoring note may record the affected entity; the exact source or practice boundary, effective scheme, model-use structure, situation, scope, or frame when it changes the claim; a change or maintained-condition claim; any current state or delta predicate; and the exact objects and relations exposed by the wording together with the rules that define or constrain them. This is a wording-repair note. Keep each project-side value under its own defining or testing rule and preserve its identity separately; the pattern ID remains a locator.

Treat input, raw material, epistemic source data or source material, output, result, outcome, deliverable, handoff, and work-name wording as triggers only while their exact relation is hidden. Once clear, bypass E.10.ARCH: use A.3.2 only for a description episteme about one exact method; A.15.2 for an intended participant or use in planned work; A.15.1 and the exact resource or participation pattern for a dated Work occurrence; A.3.4.P and the direct transformation pattern for an actual transformation participant; A.15.PROD, the measurement or evaluation pattern, or the delivery or acceptance pattern for the exact result claim; and C.29 when the word names only an argument, tuple component, graph element, or other representation place. Use C.2.P first for an epistemic source expression and source-to-use relation. Keep physical material under its direct physical governor.

If the exact method/work-boundary relation is still hidden after generic relation recovery, apply A.6.P.WMR. Its result remains exactly one family: a positive or governed-negative direct subject-relation claim; an exact A.6.1 operation-application binding; an exact local A.15.PROD or A.6.RCD claim; or reason-specific non-assertability as factually unsupported, missing-information, or missing-governor. A failed known predicate such as EpistemeUsedByReviewWorkAsReference is factually unsupported; an unavailable ETL receiving-use fact under a known rule is missing-information; an absent relation kind and defining ClaimGraph or declaration for the health-effect claim between Patient_8472 and HE-8472 is missing-governor. Only the last names an affected receiving use and a needed future relation rule or declaration. Classification, a generic result label, a type-correct designation, planned use, or inferred opposite polarity does not close the branch.

Durable naming follows the governed value. F.18 may name a performed Work occurrence only after its A.15.1 occurrence basis is established, and it names neighboring production, measurement, evaluation, delivery, and acceptance results separately. If a proposed U.* name merely repeats a declaration-local SlotSpec label or a participant meaning stated in a direct-relation rule, keep it local unless E.24 supplies durable identity, action-facing gain, and the exact relation involved. If repeated Method, Work, or process material is proposed as durable ontology, its E.24 ontic decision and, for any public U.* kind, E.24.UK admission plus the pattern containing the kind’s defining rule must precede current citation.