E.10.MOVE:11 - SoTA-Echoing
The comparison separates direct-claim recovery, cue preservation, and imported source meanings.
| Practice question | Selected answer | Serious alternative or default and defect | Same-use effort and changed loci |
|---|---|---|---|
| When route, path, or trajectory still hides an action-changing distinction, which direct claim should the reader use? | Recover the subject or bearer, identity and continuity basis, ordering or position space, and posture needed by that use; then return to the direct owner or exact gap. | Warning-only treatment gives no positive route; a general Trajectory kind, account, relation, or Method merges unlike identities and evidence; representation-first treatment covers only a declared mathematical lens. | For the same claim and required result, clear wording exits immediately and unresolved wording opens only the relevant recovery branch. The rule changes 4.2b, direct exits, 5.10, CC-E10MOVE-8, consequences, and Relations. |
| When a familiar local or imported cue helps a reader find the intended use, should the cue be retained? | Retain bounded Plain or source wording while making the governed value and contextual sense explicit. | Mechanical replacement can erase a useful cue; lexical equivalence can hide different governed values. | One cue check accompanies the same repair and changes only the local-mantra, ordinary-use, and source-wording loci. |
When TameFlow MOVE, Full-Kitting, or readiness wording is imported, what survives? | Preserve the source-practice designation and route intended Work, work-entry condition, gate, preparation Work, target Work, and value claims to their direct owners. | Universalizing the source vocabulary imports a local work-management ontology; stripping the label loses source return. | The bounded source slice adds one direct-owner split, changing the imported-source example and readiness exits without affecting ordinary trajectory cases. |
Effort boundary. Each clear case takes the cheap exit; an ambiguous case opens only the branch whose question is live. The deliberate cost is an honest exact gap when the subject or posture cannot be recovered.
| Source line | Contribution used here | Limitation and reopen condition |
|---|---|---|
FPF internal basis: E.10, E.10.ARCH, A.6.P, A.6.RCD, A.3.4.P, A.19.SPR, A.22.CGUS, E.11.PUA, E.11.PUR, and E.23 | Use a trigger word as a cue to inspect the current claim; restore any unresolved governed value and relation before rewriting, preserve ordinary useful wording, and use the direct pattern for the final claim. | These patterns govern internal recovery rather than external empirical rank. Reopen only the affected slice when one changes the relevant kind settlement, authority boundary, or recovery fields. |
Current A.3.3, A.3.4, B.4, C.27.TA, C.29, C.17–C.19, C.36, and A.16.0; Schaffter, Bounekkar, and Negre, “Trajectory-Based Recommender Systems as Control Systems”, arXiv v1, 2026-06-22 | Supply direct internal owners and a serious domain case that preserves goal, state, model, action, and posture; the comparison informs the trajectory trigger, recovery questions, direct exits, exact-gap result, and no-general-head boundary. | The preprint is exploratory, synthetic, simplified, and specific to trajectory-based recommender systems. Reopen only if a later edition or serious rival supplies validated cross-domain structure that changes the subject, identity, ordering, posture, direct-owner, or general-head decision. Locator, publication-status, popularity, or unused-example changes alone do not reopen the pattern. Monitor at ordinary refresh intervals; use continuous monitoring only if this claim becomes both high-priority and volatile. |
| Zhu, Reinecke, and Mitra, Language Scent: Exploring Cross-Language Information Navigation, arXiv v2, 2026-08-06 | Analogy for cue preservation: the study concerns query-language selection and proximal cues, with a laboratory study of 16 multilingual speakers. It motivates testing whether a familiar cue helps the current reader; the in-situ wording decision still uses F.19. | Cross-language navigation is the study’s scope. Reopen the adopted cue hypothesis if broader evidence shows that a cue obscures the governed value or impedes the intended reader use. |
| Steve Tendon, The Book of TameFlow: Theory of Constraints Applied to Knowledge-Work Management, publisher’s contents accessed 2026-09-02; historical source context: Tendon, Constraints Everywhere, 2020 | The book supplies MOVE (Minimal Outcome-Value Effort) and Full-Kitting; the historical article distinguishes forward-looking preparation from current execution. These ground the source-practice distinctions among effort, outcome or value, constraint, and pre-entry preparation. | This line is scoped to knowledge-work management and is not a universal move or readiness ontology. Reopen if the used source meanings or FPF work, readiness, or gate patterns change their result boundaries. |
The selected line is FPF’s direct-claim recovery. The external sources contribute a domain comparison, a cue-preservation hypothesis, and imported practice meanings; the constructed architecture case is in §5.10.