E.10.LRN:4 - Solution
Recover the current claim from its participants, subject, operation, result, and use rather than from the word learning.
- Bound the wording use. Quote or locate only the sentence or source expression whose interpretation changes a claim, inference, or action.
- Recover the grammatical commitment. Identify who or what is said to have taught, trained, learned, changed, produced, inferred, or acquired something. Grammar foregrounds a claim but does not fill missing causal participants or evidence.
- Name the changed subject. State whether the current claim concerns a person’s capability, an episteme, a model and parameters, a probability distribution, a representation relation, an organization or population, a product, a Work occurrence, or another exact subject.
- Separate Work, Method, and result. Name inquiry, teaching, practice, training, optimization, inference, experiment, data acquisition, assessment, publication, or cultural-continuation Work only when it is current. Keep its performer, Method, inputs, and dated occurrence separate from the result attributed to another subject.
- State the evidence and any material transfer boundary. Name what was observed or assessed, for which task, population, configuration, window, support arrangement, and use. State an unsupported stronger claim only when independent local grounds make that reading plausible and the distinction changes use.
- Select one direct branch. Use the branch table below. When one sentence contains several branches, split it into several ordinary sentences and route each one separately.
- Stop after recovery. Return the repaired claim and direct pattern, or an exact missing-information, missing-governor, quote-only, ordinary-use, or blocker result. Do not create a generic learning record, role kind, process, progress scale, or causal relation.
E.10.LRN:4.1 - Direct branches
| Recovered current claim | Required route and boundary |
|---|---|
| A person or other System acquired or changed a capability for later Work | Use A.2.2 and the direct capability-development/evaluation patterns. Name holder, target Work, conditions, support arrangement, performance evidence, transfer horizon, and uncertainty. Practice, teaching, a score, or one successful performance does not by itself establish the capability. |
| A teacher, coach, peer, tool-using System or other admitted System performed teaching, demonstration, feedback, or practice-support Work | Use A.13 and A.15.1 for the independently admitted performer and dated Work, A.3.1 for the enacted Method, and direct responsibility/authority relations when current. Environmental conditions keep their own causal or support relations unless an actual performer is independently established. The occurrence and intended result do not entail capability acquisition by the recipient. |
| A person inquired, noticed, remembered, understood, or revised an episteme | Recover the exact episteme, representation, source use, inquiry Work, and claim change through C.2.1, A.6.3.RT, A.10, and the direct subject pattern. Do not infer a general capability from one reported insight. |
| A statistical or machine-learning system was trained or fitted | Identify target function, distribution, or policy; data and data-generating assumptions; model family; objective or estimator; training/optimization Work; resulting model edition; evaluation conditions; and deployment use. Parameter change, a low training loss, a generated sample, and deployed-system capability remain different claims. |
| A probabilistic inference Method returned a posterior or approximation | Identify the target model/distribution, observations, inference or approximation family, objective/divergence/bound, computation, diagnostics, and returned distribution. Variational inference is an inference/optimization branch. |
| Active learning, curiosity, exploration, question asking, or data mining selected or acquired information | Identify the query, observation, experiment, or data-acquisition option; current belief/model state; expected or observed information result; cost; and receiving decision. Information acquisition or uncertainty reduction does not by itself establish capability, transfer, useful action, or an evidence-qualified next choice. |
| A probe found a “learned representation” | Distinguish the system-side phenomenon, training history when relevant, probe-training Work, decoded rendering, representation relation under A.6.3.RT and C.29, and any admitted episteme. Decodability or a readable label does not establish causal use, internal semantic identity, or general capability. |
| An organization, community, or culture “learned” | Recover changed Methods, assignments, Work, carriers, population, transmission or reconstruction, selection, retention, loss, and consequences through their direct patterns and C.36. A report, policy, or lesson-learned entry does not establish changed enacted practice. |
| A course, lesson, guide, dataset, pattern, artifact, or other learning product was created or used | Identify the product episteme or artifact, any claimed production Work, publication or use relation, intended capability contribution and observed result separately. Use of an existing product need not assert its production Work. The carrier is not the holder’s capability or internal state. |
| Ordinary or quoted wording makes no FPF-governed claim | Preserve it. If relied on later, recover the exact branch then. |
E.10.LRN:4.2 - Grammar does not settle the route
| Wording | What it foregrounds | What remains unresolved |
|---|---|---|
| “The teacher taught Mira to swim.” | Teaching Work, participants, and an intended capability result. | Whether Mira acquired, retained, or transferred the swimming capability; the exact causal contribution of the teaching. |
| “Mira learned to swim.” | Ordinarily, a changed capability of Mira. | Whether the route included a teacher, self-directed inquiry, practice, tool, peer, environment, or several contributors; the evidence and transfer boundary. |
| “Mira learned from the manual.” | A source-use or inquiry route may be claimed. | The exact episteme change, capability result, evidence, and whether the manual was merely available or actually used. |
| “The GAN learned the distribution.” | Source-local shorthand for adversarial training and a resulting model. | What distributional relation was established, which model edition, evaluation/generalization basis, and deployed capability. |
| “Learning progress increased.” | Some change over a window. | Whether the coordinate is performance, capability evidence, prediction error, information gain, model fit, compression, representation, or something else. |
Passive and active grammar can also shift attention without changing ontology. “Was taught” foregrounds an intervention received; “learned” foregrounds the attributed result. Neither wording alone establishes the full causal route.
E.10.LRN:4.3 - Construction, public results, and patterns
Constructivism and constructionism remain source-local theories and Method families. Constructionism shares the learner-side construction emphasis and adds a design commitment to making something public or shareable. For FPF this is a useful Method and evidence-design pressure: a model, program, explanation, dance, diagram, or other external construction can expose distinctions and Methods for inspection.
The construction still does not prove capability, authorship, independent use, transfer, or retention. Pair construction tasks with representative later-Work tasks and direct evidence when those claims matter. Reciting a poem or reproducing a pattern may establish a narrow remembered performance; it is not automatically action-guiding capability in a new situation.
An FPF pattern is an action-guiding episteme. In a named cultural case it can also be a retained, transmitted, selected, or reconstructed cultural variant under C.36. It is not the universal atomic unit of knowledge, a “meme” kind, the holder’s internal state, or the holder’s capability merely because it was copied or published.
E.10.LRN:4.4 - Lightweight local result
For a local repair, the result can remain this small:
source wording: the GAN learned the target distribution
recovered claims:
- adversarial training Work optimized two parameterized models under a minimax objective
- trained model edition G-17 generated samples evaluated under tests T1–T3
direct routes: A.15, A.3, C.2.1, C.16, A.10, statistical-model-fitting practice
blocked overreads: no exact target-distribution identity; no generalization beyond T1–T3
stop: deployment capability is a separate current question
No persistent record is required unless another use needs to inspect or reuse this recovery.