E.10:0 - Use this when

Use E.10 when a word, head, or short phrase in FPF-governed text still hides its kind, register, morphology, reusable name, or exact FPF relation after the surrounding sentence has been read in ordinary language.

What goes wrong if missed. An author replaces one broad word with another or imports a technical-looking classification without recovering the object, relation, or use that made the wording matter.

What this buys. E.10 supplies cheap cues and the shortest exact route to an existing FPF rule. It does not turn ordinary prose into a lexical record or make every candidate word open an ontology exercise.

First useful move. Read the complete natural span with F.19. If its object, predicate, participants, referents, purpose and list meaning are clear, make the plain repair and stop. Use the cue surface below only to locate an unresolved FPF wording use; then open the smallest applicable lexical or subject pattern.

Not this pattern when. Use F.19 for general plain-language repair, missing operands, predicate compatibility, grounded contrasts, referents, coordination, list load, and information order. Use the subject pattern directly when the object and the rule or operation needed from it are already clear. For non-FPF source prose, use C.2.P source-expression unpacking mode and borrow an E.10 cue only when preparing a possible FPF use.

A cue is neither a ban nor a verdict. Its absence is not semantic clearance, and its presence is not an instruction to formalize the sentence.

E.10:0.0a - One-screen cue and route

Read one complete sentence, row, paragraph, list, or small coherent section rather than classifying a word in isolation.
Apply the connected F.19 reading. If ordinary meaning settles the issue, write the repaired text and reread the changed sentence with only its meaning-dependent neighbors.
If an FPF wording question remains, name that one question: head or kind, register, morphology, durable name, direct relation and participant, reusable declaration, claim or report, representation, source or publication use, or another exact governed object.
Use the applicable subject pattern directly when the object and claim are already recoverable. Use the detailed E.10 rows only for the selected lexical question. Open E.10.ARCH when the distinction among a world-side fact, reusable declaration, claim or report, and representation is itself unresolved.
Check the replacement for another umbrella head, an unintended kind or scope change, and a newly introduced relation. If one remains unresolved, state the blocker instead of filling the sentence with possible interpretations.

A complete reading can preserve clear conversational wording or an exact locally defined meaning. Where something remains unresolved, distinguish a sentence repair under an existing rule, a needed distinction or relation for which the defining rule is absent, and facts still missing to decide the meaning or claim. Unavailable facts do not establish an ontology gap. An applicable pattern supplies its stated rule; its presence does not prove that every encountered case is covered.

The ordinary result is retained or repaired text, or a specific blocker. E.10 requires no per-correction card, field set, concordance row, or classification receipt. A using environment may manage attention over a large text, but that mechanism is outside this language pattern.

Common prose can often remain ordinary after the relation is stated: Test T is evidence for claim C; Index I helps readers find section S; Column C bears roof R's load. These sentences reach different subject patterns and do not need a common SupportRelation.

Local patterns may cite a useful recognition row. They do not copy the trigger inventory or create a local lexical registry unless a stable local vocabulary is itself the governed product. Self-application remains bounded: use E.21 for pattern-quality evaluation and the exact subject pattern for any non-lexical claim.

E.10:0.1 - Scope split

E.10 applies to lexical conformance in FPF pattern text, extracted pattern hosts, FPF-Spec monolith text, FPF governing documents, accepted DRR text, and any project, product, research, engineering, or review text that deliberately uses FPF terms, pattern references, FPF relation names, FPF kind claims, FPF admissibility claims, or claims FPF conformance.

For ordinary source text, intake notes, seminar transcripts, external reviews, project documents, source publications, tool outputs, or other text that does not itself claim FPF-governed use, use C.2.P source-expression unpacking mode. That use may borrow tests or rules from E.10, A.6.P, A.6.6, F.18, or another relevant pattern, but it does not judge the source text as failed FPF wording.

E.10:0.2 - Compact cue and routing surface

Keep these cues available while applying F.19. They help find candidate spans; they do not replace the whole-span judgement.

Cue family	Inspect in the complete natural span	Continue beyond `F.19` only when
Broad or overloaded heads such as `support`, `basis`, `context`, `role`, `process`, `method`, `route`, `record`, `result`, or `status`	What recognizable object, relation, source, use, or state does the sentence actually mean?	An FPF kind, register, relation, source use, or governed value remains unclear.
Development- or evolution-family wording such as `development`, `evolution`, `progress`, `growth`, `adaptation`, or `lineage`	What changed or is represented, what continuity or membership matters, what posture or value claim is current, and which direct owner receives it?	Those values remain action-changing and unresolved; use `E.10.DEV`, then `E.10.MOVE` only for a separate remaining path or trajectory ambiguity.
Agentive or causal predicates attached to evidence, documents, patterns, representations, methods, or other doubtful subjects	Can the grammatical subject bear the asserted predicate under the intended literal or ordinary metonymic reading? Check inside negation, modality, and examples.	Precise systemhood, agency, Work, attribution, evidence, or causal use is itself part of the claim.
Negative and contrastive forms such as `not`, `rather than`, `does not mean`, `does not turn`, warnings, and non-use guards	Does a plausible intended reader have an independent local reason to construct the rejected reading, and does the distinction change truth, understanding, or use?	The guard carries an exact FPF admissibility, safety, source-use, or claim boundary.
Verbs with uncertain objects or destinations; relational nouns such as `bearer`, `boundary`, `basis`, `readiness`, or `condition`; vague pronouns and demonstratives	Can one intended operand, other participant, or referent be recovered cheaply and uniquely?	The missing value is an exact FPF participant, relation position, state bearer, or source reference.
Grouping marks, repeated coordination at several grammatical levels, comma or semicolon chains, nested lists, stacked modifiers before the governing clause, and coverage heads such as examples, variants, forms, activities, or continuations	Does the reader need a series at all? If so, what proposition it serves, what its membership semantics are, and which members change use?	A closed FPF value set, kind, declaration, relation set, or representation remains unresolved.
Qualifiers such as `exact`, `direct`, `current`, `supported`, `valid`, `ready`, `stronger`, or `safe`	What live alternative, bearer, scale, criterion, time, or bounded use does the qualifier distinguish?	The qualifier carries a governed identity, state, characteristic, decision, or admissible-use claim.
New tokens, suffixes, compounds, acronyms, paired registers, and reusable labels	Is this a local wording choice or a durable FPF name, and does its form expose the settled kind?	Register, morphology, token class, collision, or durable naming is current.
Source, publication, carrier, field, table, graph, dashboard, or model wording	Is the sentence about the represented object, a claim-bearing episteme, publication or carrier use, or the representation and its correspondence?	The source-use, publication, declaration, or representation boundary is still hidden.

Semantic-area cues: classify FPF-governed trigger wording before acceptance by semantic area, not by a local forbidden-word list. Typical classes include admissibility/deontic terms, evidence and review-check terms, action-invitation terms, characteristic/scale and stratification source labels, state-family terms, lifecycle/process terms, pattern-application wording, publication-form terms, and local equivalents.

Package-form and relation cues: primary carrier, specialization, profile, overlay, family, bundle, cluster, suite, pack, kit, record, umbrella, and local equivalents.

Item count is only a cue. Two coordinated members may already form a needless catalogue; a long legal set, signature, inventory, or checklist may be required. Matching kinds do not earn a series by themselves: the receiving use must require readers to distinguish or retain the members together.

exact is not a general precision marker. Keep it for literal or bounded source identity, or when it distinguishes a live alternative that changes truth, action, publication, reuse, or reliance. An ordinary PatternID citation needs no formal expansion merely because it is exact.

E.10:0.2a - Exact routing boundary

If the applicable pattern and the current object, direct relation and participants, declaration, claim-bearing episteme, representation and correspondence, or source use are already recoverable, use that pattern directly and state its concrete contribution—for example, a definition, constraint, test, method, or lookup.

Remaining unresolved question	Smallest next route
Local head, register, morphology, or already-settled token use	The applicable detailed `E.10` section.
Meaning of `context`, learning-family or interest-family wording, bare `role`, move or readiness wording, function-like wording, state-family wording, or characteristic wording	`E.10.D1`, `E.10.LRN`, `E.10.INT`, `E.10.ROLE`, `E.10.MOVE`, `A.6.F`, `A.19.SPR`, or `C.16.P` respectively.
Development or evolution wording still hides the changed or represented subject, continuity or membership, posture, direction or value basis, direct owner, or receiving use	`E.10.DEV`; continue to `E.10.MOVE` only when an independent trajectory, route, path, ordering, posture, or representation ambiguity remains.
Direct predicate or actual participant remains unclear	`A.6.P`; use `A.6.RCD` only after both are clear and no current pattern defines or constrains the predicate.
Fact, reusable relation declaration, claim or report, and representation are still being confused	`E.10.ARCH`, followed by the exact subject pattern.
Episteme, publication, carrier, source-reference target, or source-use relation remains hidden	`C.2.P` and then the exact publication, source, evidence, or use pattern.
Intentional loss of precision for a narrower admissible use	Apply the controlled precision-reduction pattern, normally `A.6.3.CSC`, with `E.17.*`, `A.6.3.RT`, `F.9`, or `C.29` when that relation is being made. Recover the source-bearing side, declared loss, narrower admissible use, blocked downstream use, and reopen condition.
One durable reusable name is needed after its value and use are settled	`F.18`; one-off wording remains local.
Meaning cannot yet be recovered	Leave a plain blocker or retain bounded quote-only or source-only wording.

The result is the repaired wording, the concrete result of the selected pattern, or the blocker. Do not require a rejected neighboring interpretation, a field schema, or a complete catalogue of possible routes when the current sentence needs only one.

E.10:0.2b - Optional trigger index

The compact surface above is the normal entry. The detailed rules in E.10:0.2c and the L-rules in section 9 are optional references after one cue has selected a real FPF wording problem.

Frequent search terms include broad heads (support, basis, context, role, method, process, result, record), state and authority-looking words (current, ready, valid, approved, required), source and representation words (source, publication, carrier, field, map, dashboard), and grouping or coverage language (and, plus, slashes, examples, variants, forms). They are examples, not a closed lexicon. Search can increase recall; only the natural-span reading can decide whether a defect exists.

Use a detailed row only when its exact distinction changes the repair. Otherwise write the ordinary sentence and return to the domain task.

E.10:0.2b.1 - `requirement` and `required` recovery

Treat requirement and required as cues, not as a shared engineering kind or durable suffix. Read the complete span through F.19; when an ordinary sentence can state the condition or action directly, repair it and stop.

When the wording still carries an FPF-governed claim, recover the bearer, the exact claim or relation kind, the governing pattern when its identity changes use, and the practical consequence. Write that construction directly and reread the changed sentence. The result is the repaired text or a blocker, not a separate record.

Current claim behind the wording	Exact recovery and practical consequence
An accountable subject undertakes a duty, accepts a recommendation-as-duty, or is prohibited under an issuing or authority relation.	`A.2.8 -> U.Commitment`; the commitment changes the accountable subject’s declared duty, recommendation-as-duty, or prohibition stance for the stated scope and validity window.
A valid grant permits a beneficiary, no prohibition is found in a current sufficiently complete frame, dated work exercises a grant, actual dated work is found not to violate any applicable prohibition in a current sufficiently complete frame, or a same-scope permission conflict is found.	`A.2.8.PER` -> the exact `GrantedPermissionRelation@Context`, `NonProhibitionFinding@Context`, `PermissionExerciseRelation@Context`, `NonViolationFinding@Context`, or `PermissionNormConflictFinding@Context`; do not route it through `U.Commitment`.
A subject structure, value, or use must remain inside a stated engineering boundary.	The constraint claim under the pattern that defines it; the constraint blocks or admits the named use and does not create a commitment without an accountable subject and authority relation.
A public pattern-use template says which candidate-basis positions must have current fillers.	E.11 `CandidatePatternUseBasisCompletenessCondition@FPFReadme`; it describes positive completeness and does not order a participant to fill a form.
One candidate pattern use can precede another only because the first candidate’s result is its basis.	E.11.PUR precedence with `prerequisiteResult` and the prerequisite candidate’s exact `PatternUseResultExpectation@Context`; no duplicate result-kind field is created.
One transformation-flow position depends on another.	E.18.3 `basisDependency` with its exact supporting relation; dependency is not obligation.
An improvement loop cannot continue until missing information positions become sufficient.	E.23 `holdUntilInformationBasisSufficient` with non-empty unfilled-position descriptions and one sufficiency condition.
A framework-authoring dependency is absent or not current for the next use.	E.4.DPF separates availability from relevance; only a missing dependency carries an acquisition-condition description, and only `missing + currentForNextAuthoringUse` blocks the next authoring use.
A candidate framework organization must cover declared relation families for a stated use.	One E.4.DPF constraint claim node with covered family ref-kind pairs, admitted-use description, and coverage-criterion description; any WorkPlan acceptance target remains separate basis.

Name admission precedes slot verification. CandidatePatternUseBasisRelation@Context is admissible because the head exposes the basis relation and its two sides; CandidatePatternUseBinding is not repaired by kind-correct fields because Binding hides that subject relation. Likewise, BoundaryConditionKindSlot names a slot whose values classify boundary conditions; BoundaryRoleSlot would falsely suggest a role value. Apply F.18 only when a durable name is actually being minted.

E.10:0.2b.2 - External holon and graph-expression source wording

Cue. External holon-class or Holon Graph Architecture (HGA) graph-expression wording such as AgentHolon, OrganisationHolon, DataHolon, ProcessHolon, Portal, Projection, event envelope, provenance, target holon, projection envelope, projected content, envelope, payload, RDF graph, node, edge, traversal, or boundary-governed payload whose FPF object is hidden.

Recover the claim before importing the source label. Use A.1 for admitted system or holon claims; C.2.1, E.17, architecture-description, publication, source-relation, or evidence patterns for data, document, projected content, description, publication, view, or evidence claims; A.10, source-relation, evidence-relation, dated-work, or publication patterns for event and provenance claims; and A.3.4.P, method, work-plan, or Work patterns for process-like wording. Portal, access, traversal, service-access, protocol, and agreement-like words do not select peer routers. While their object remains hidden, use A.6.RSIR; after recovery, use E.17 or the pattern for the publication claim, C.29 or the pattern for the representation and correspondence, A.6.0 plus A.6.5 for a reusable signature and its slots, A.6.M for a module-interface claim, the pattern for the policy claim, and A.10 or the pattern for the evidence claim. Use A.6.P:4.11a only when a relied-on service or access phrase hides its concrete subject or direct relation; use A.6.C only when recovered service-term, SLA, protocol, or agreement-like wording bundles promise, utterance or publication, governance, Work or consequence, or evidence claims; use general A.6.P only for another under-specified direct relation. For graph, RDF, node, edge, or traversal expression claims, use C.29, A.22, C.30.ASV, C.30.AD, E.17, or the pattern for the recovered source or publication relation; use A.6.B only for L, A, D, or E statement classification inside a boundary package.

W3C Community Group Holon Graph Architecture (HGA) vocabulary is retained as a serious source-finding cue or comparison term only after the recovered FPF object is named and differences from FPF are explicit. Do not mint source-class U-kinds such as U.AgentHolon, U.DataHolon, U.ProcessHolon, U.Portal, U.Projection, U.Envelope, or U.Payload; do not turn semantic-web class names or graph-expression vocabulary into FPF ontology.

E.10:0.2c - Lexical Trigger Rewrite Rules

E.10:0.2c.1 - EntityOfConcern, primary entity of concern, and local topic wording

Do not replace every topic-like or object-like phrase with EntityOfConcern. Classify the sentence first.

If local wording meant…	Rewrite as…
the EntityOfConcern named by a claim-bearing episteme or episteme-lane `U.View`	the actual `EntityOfConcern` participant under C.2.1; use `EntityOfConcernRef` or `entityOfConcernRef` only when the applicable reference rule requires it, and keep the episteme or `U.View` separate
the admissible class constraint on actual EntityOfConcern participants corresponding to one current episteme-constitution declaration	`EntityOfConcernClass` only where that declaration or an EntityOfConcern-preserving law is being applied
what one bounded `PublicationUnit` is mainly about	`publicationUnitPrimaryEntityOfConcern` under `C.2.P` and `E.17.AUD`, with its carried-EntityOfConcern or non-claim-bearing kind/topic/subject meaning; `publicationUnitPrimarySubject` for `E.17.AUD.OOTD`’s separate primary-subject question, with C.2.1 projection only under that pattern’s equality condition; otherwise the non-claim-bearing kind or reference named by value, or plain `topic` or `subject` only when no claim-bearing episteme participant, current A.6.5 declaration, or direct reference use is current
wording such as `describedEntity`, `DescribedEntityRef`, `primary described entity`, `EntityOfInterest`, or `EoIClass`	recover the actual `EntityOfConcern` participant under C.2.1, the publication-unit primary-EntityOfConcern or ordinary primary-subject use, or the local FPF kind; use `EntityOfConcernSlot` only as an A.6.5 `SlotSpec` inside a current reusable constitution `RelationSignature`; keep `entityOfConcernRef` and `EntityOfConcernRef` under their applicable reference rules; and rewrite to the exact current value among those, `EntityOfConcernChangeMode`, `EntityOfConcernClass`, `publicationUnitPrimaryEntityOfConcern`, `publicationUnitPrimarySubject` only 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 can be recovered by value, keep the old wording only as quoted source or trigger wording and block reliance.
a review target	`review target`, review-facing target packet named by value, FPF pattern, pattern section, or file-carrier set only when the file-carrier interpretation is being made
a local table or paragraph topic with no claim-bearing episteme, C.2.1 participant, current declaration, or reference use	`topic`, `subject`, or direct noun
an FPF-side pattern, pattern section, accepted `DRR`, FPF publication, FPF view, document with named source-basis, evidence-basis, architecture-basis, or review-basis relation or use, or companion or projection material being improved	FPF pattern, pattern section, accepted `DRR`, FPF publication, FPF view, document with named source-basis, evidence-basis, architecture-basis, or review-basis relation or use, or companion or projection material
a project-side episteme, publication, record, carrier, or activity under work	project episteme, view, or publication named by value, independently established evidence-use relation recovered through A.10, typed evidence record, `A.20` constraint or adjudication decision record, A.21 `GateDecisionResult`, an optional A.21 `DecisionLog`, `B.3` assurance or engineering-justification record, typed status record whose FPF status pattern is named, `A.2.8 U.Commitment`, exact `A.2.8.PER` permission result, `C.11 ChoiceResult`, `C.11` decision record, `A.6.A` action invitation, one `A.15.1` dated Work occurrence admitted under `U.Work`, a separate episteme about that occurrence, `A.15 U.WorkPlan`, `U.Method`, `U.MethodDescription`, carrier relation, or front-end relation

Use the selected row only when the EntityOfConcern distinction changes the sentence. State the recovered participant, publication-unit use, review target, or ordinary topic directly; preserve any claim-bearing episteme, declaration, representation, source wording, and reader use that actually remains current. The ordinary result is the repaired sentence or a blocker, followed by the local F.19 reread.

E.10:0.2c.2 - publication-unit wording that implies authoring or interpretation work

When a phrase makes the bounded unit sound like authoring work or interpretation work, split the sentence by kind under repair.

If local wording meant…	Rewrite as…
bounded human-inspected unit inside a publication	`PublicationUnit`
the act of writing or editing	ordinary authoring or editing. Name dated Work only when one occurrence is asserted; use a planning cue or content inside an admitted `U.WorkPlan` when intended work and its planning claims are current. An exact episteme is `U.WorkPlan` only after A.15.2 recovers one present EntityOfConcern, one horizon, at least one `PlanItem`, and substantive coordination claims about possible future performed work. When the sentence instead concerns the authored object, use a separately identified claim-bearing episteme under its own exact kind. Any production or change relation between the Work and that episteme needs its own defining rule or pattern. The authored episteme is `U.MethodDescription` only if its exact EntityOfConcern is one admitted `U.Method` and its claims independently pass A.3.2; the writing or editing act is never the MethodDescription.
a pattern body or section	FPF pattern body, pattern section, or `PublicationUnit` of that pattern
a file or rendered medium	carrier, front-end, rendering, or document with named source-basis, evidence-basis, architecture-basis, or review-basis relation or use
a publication form	publication form
a generic publication face	generic publication face, or `U.View` only when the relevant view pattern states that relation
a declared MVPK face	declared MVPK face, and `U.EpistemeView` only under MVPK constraints
a claim-bearing episteme or episteme species named by value	selected `U.Episteme`, episteme-lane `U.View` with explicit episteme tether, or episteme species named by value; when current availability matters, name the exact `EpistemePublicationRelation` occurrence separately

Do not make a permanent technical modifier by joining authoring, interpretation, and unit-boundary concerns. That mix hides whether the sentence is about a publication unit, authoring work, reader inspection, or a carried claim.

E.10:0.2c.3 - `content`

Do not use content as a catch-all head. Split it into:

claim-bearing episteme content;
publication-unit text;
publication form;
generic publication face;
declared MVPK face;
carrier data;
payload of a record kind named by the pattern that defines that record;
pattern section;
source-basis excerpt;
review target.

Plain explanatory prose may use content only when the sentence does not carry ontology, authority, or admissibility.

E.10:0.2c.4 - `publication`

Every FPF-governed publication sentence names the publication construction being used:

act or occurrence of publishing, or publishing work;
selected U.Episteme plus the exact EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence when availability to a declared audience for a bounded use is current;
publication form;
generic publication face;
declared MVPK face;
PublicationUnit;
carrier or rendering;
document with named source-basis, evidence-basis, architecture-basis, or review-basis relation or use;
external-standard publication;
project record publication.

If the sentence says a publication “supports”, “authorizes”, “proves”, “permits”, or “makes admissible” something, make the basis explicit: state the relation when a relation claim is being made, state the admissible-use boundary when a boundary-use claim is being made, and name the exact project-side kind and reference when project-side records, evidence or provenance relations, gate decisions, constraint or adjudication decisions, assurance records, work, action invitations, speech acts, commitments, methods, or carriers are being used. Record those values in relationClaimSlice, admissibleUse, and projectSideFPFRef, respectively, only when the receiving claim needs the named fields.

E.10:0.2c.5 - `surface`, `view`, `face`

Do not treat these as synonyms.

Word	First split
`view`	`U.View`, `U.EpistemeView`, reader viewpoint, UI view, declared-substrate interpretive view, or review view
`face`	generic publication face, declared MVPK face, UI face, or public-facing companion publication
`surface`	Treat as trigger wording, not as an accepted Tech head. Recover one of: publication face, publication form, publication unit, carrier, rendering, UI or front-end face, physical or geometric surface, companion publication, companion or projection material, carrier relation, or another FPF object named by value.

If the sentence can survive only because these are blurred, the sentence is not ready.

E.10:0.2c.6 - `source`, `target`

These are relation words, not final kinds.

Recover the relation or use that makes something a source; common cases include a selected source U.Episteme, exact EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence or reference when availability is material, publication form or carrier when either is the source object, U.View over a source U.Episteme, document with named source-basis, evidence-basis, architecture-basis, or review-basis relation or use, independently established evidence-use relation recovered through A.10, authority-reference relation, named FPF pattern cited as source, file carrier, exact source edition, source-local meaning under an effective scheme, source frame only when its defining pattern and endpoint kind are present, the actual source-side participant of an obtaining named relation, the source-side A.6.5 SlotSpec only when a reusable relation declaration is current, or project-side FPF kind and reference named by value.

Recover the relation or use that makes something a target; common cases include an EntityOfConcern, target U.Episteme, review target, FPF rule being applied, project target, work target, target publication form, project-side FPF kind and reference named by value, target frame, target-side situation or model-use boundary only when its defining rule is current, the actual target-side participant of an obtaining named relation, or the target-side A.6.5 SlotSpec only when a reusable relation declaration is current.

Generic object and target are not final recovered kinds. Keep them only when the sentence explicitly declares a named field or participant designation inside a current episteme, such as ObjectKindUnderImprovement, ObjectVersionUnderImprovement, or ObjectVersionUnderQualityEvaluation; names a review target; or states one direct-relation participant meaning whose actual-participant kind is supplied by value nearby. If a reusable relation declaration is current, name its A.6.5 SlotSpec separately. When the governed kind is known, write that kind by value: FPF pattern version, DRR, FPF corpus slice, publication form, PublicationUnit, file carrier, system carrier, exact changed referent, exact entity or value bound as the result of one particular A.6.1 operation application, candidate proposal, evidence or provenance relation, gate decision, work plan, method description, object-under-improvement evaluation, or another named FPF kind.

Do not recover an FPF pattern, publication form, PublicationUnit, pattern body, or view as a carrier. U.PresentationCarrier is the publication-side carrier kind used under E.17 and E.24.PUB; ordinary carrier wording names the relation to the system, medium, file, rendering, front end, or transport object that bears or renders a publication or symbol. If the text means the FPF pattern publication form, write FPF pattern publication form; if it means the file, rendered, front-end, or transport side, name that exact carrier or relation.

Common repair examples:

Problem wording	Recovery needed
`target version` in improvement prose	`ObjectVersionUnderImprovement` or `ObjectVersionUnderQualityEvaluation`, unless `target` is quoted source wording
`pattern carrier`	`FPF pattern publication form` when the pattern is the publication form; file carrier or rendering only when the system-side bearer is being claimed
`object evaluation` when the evaluated kind is known	object-under-improvement evaluation name, such as `PatternQualityQBundle`, `DRRDecisionAdequacyEvaluationCharacteristicSpace`, `FPFPillarAdequacyEvaluationCharacteristicSpace`, or declared local evaluation
`thing`, `object`, `target`, `artifact`, or `material` as final head	FPF kind named by value, project-side FPF kind, or blocker

Do not publish “source and target” if the selected relation needs the actual FPF kind.

E.10:0.2c.7 - `input`, `raw material`, `source data`, `source material`, `artifact`, `output`, `result`, `outcome`, `deliverable`, `work product`

These are high-risk relation-dependent source-word umbrellas, not final kinds or one result family. First name the exact entity and the exact object relative to which the word is being used. For epistemic source data or source material, close the exact source expression, episteme or publication, and source-to-use relation under C.2.P first. For physical raw material, name the relevant constituent, affected-referent, resource-use, supply, transfer, or transformation relation and use the pattern that defines it.

When the remaining current claim is relative to a method, plan, dated work, transformation, evaluation, delivery, transfer, or receiving use, apply A.6.P.WMR. Recover claim subject, modality and exact temporal extent, polarity, and recovery/support state independently. Closure is exactly one of four truthful families: an exact direct subject-relation claim, positive or governed negative; an exact A.6.1 operation-application binding; an exact local A.15.PROD or A.6.RCD claim; or an exact non-assertability result whose reason is independently factually unsupported, missing-information, or missing-governor. A failed known predicate and an unavailable fact keep their known governor and name no future subject pattern or relation declaration; only a genuinely absent predicate, condition, or defining pattern or declaration names the affected receiving use and future subject pattern or relation declaration. Classification, a generic result relation, a method-description field, planned filling, a designation that merely type-checks against an A.6.5 SlotSpec, or a polarity inference is not closure.

Before opening that branch, test whether the phrase already names an independently identified U.Episteme; U.View or U.EpistemeView; publication form; publication face, including a declared MVPK face; PublicationUnit; carrier, front-end, or rendering relation; project-side FPF kind and reference named by value; evidence carrier or evidence relation; document under a named source-basis, evidence-basis, architecture-basis, or review-basis relation or use; review target; C.11 ChoiceResult; measurement-result episteme; evaluation result; diagnostic finding; decision; or another project object whose record kind and defining rule are named by value. Retain ordinary input, output, result, outcome, or deliverable only while the exact defining relation rule remains recoverable. If no governor closes the selected WMR claim, return the bounded blocker. If the missing item is instead a non-WMR kind, retain an architecture-first candidate disposition under the pattern that defines that candidate. Do not invent either one inside pattern prose or replace it with a universal kind or relation.

For work product, name the thing and the claim being made about it: a corrected recording, a report’s content, an assembled device, or another particular entity. A.15.PROD distinguishes participation in production, the first satisfaction of an entity’s identity rule, and completion under a criterion. Apply only the question actually raised. A document can describe a wanted change without being that change; a publication occurrence, delivery and acceptance each need their own basis. A.15.2:4.2 keeps an expected output or delivery target in the plan from asserting its existence or completion.

For a recurring result of Work or result of a project, reuse the established meaning and obtain the facts for the new participants. A.6.P.WMR:4.7 explains that reuse, including production across entity kinds, preservation of a condition, joint Work and later use; :5.7 develops the authoring case and a missing-fact return. Different participant kinds do not by themselves require different result meanings, and the common word does not make those different relations one. A.15.6 supplies the actual-project and whole/part grounds when that claim is current.

E.10:0.2c.7a - `goal`, `purpose`, `objective`, and the concern of a method

Read these words with the action or claim they qualify. Whose aim is being stated, what is it about, and what change or preserved condition matters for the decision? A team’s chosen goal can explain its choice of a Method. The same Method can serve several purposes. Keep a clear ordinary use without requiring a formal goal object.

For a Method, A.3.1:4.1 and :4.4 distinguish what future enactments concern from what successful enactment is meant to achieve or preserve. Observing a recording’s timing, correcting it and judging its fitness for movement analysis concern related material but answer different questions. State the reusable action, intended effect and relevant limits. A Method concern is not automatically an actual participant, an object physically changed, a declaration-local argument or result slot, or a field to be filled in a WorkPlan. Use the exact relation or declaration only when that further claim is needed.

For example, a team wants movement analysis with timing error at most 3 ms. Its proposed preparation Method is concerned with correcting the recording’s relative timing while preserving the recorded movements. The plan names the recording to prepare and the intended delivery. These sentences say what is wanted and how the team proposes to obtain it. Whether a particular recording meets the limit, was used in analysis, or improved that analysis requires the corresponding facts and rule; none follows from calling all of them “the result”.

The purpose of a guide likewise states the use it is intended to help its readers perform. Its explanation, the published file, a reader’s use and any resulting improvement remain distinct claims when the decision depends on them. Use §0.2c.7 for an unresolved result or work-product claim, §0.2c.13a for an unresolved contribution claim, and the subject pattern directly once the meaning is clear.

E.10:0.2c.8 - `record`

Use record only when an FPF pattern or project practice defines the record kind and relation. The nearby wording says which FPF kind the record instantiates or records, for example:

an A.10 descriptive evidence-provenance account for a named claim, citing independently established relations;
A.21 GateDecisionResult or DecisionLogRef;
A.20 constraint or adjudication decision record;
C.11 ChoiceResult or decision record;
A.15 U.WorkPlan, one A.15.1 dated Work occurrence admitted under U.Work, or a separately identified claim-bearing episteme about that occurrence; use a record-kind name only when its exact kind and defining record rule are recoverable;
A.2.8 U.Commitment, exact A.2.8.PER permission result, or A.2.9 SpeechAct publication;
a separately identified assignment-assertion or occurrence-description episteme that designates one exact RA : U.SystemRoleAssignment, or a status-register entry under its named status pattern; neither record is the world-side assignment occurrence;
E.19 review run record or another named review record whose review target and review relation are explicit;
process run record in process documents.

Do not let record mean “any file that remembers something”, “the missing source”, or “the thing to create when support is absent”. If a named support relation cannot be asserted because a required actual participant or value is absent, name that exact missing participant or value. If a reusable declaration is incomplete, name its missing SlotSpec or other missing declaration content and repair that declaration. If a receiving assertion or relation-occurrence-description episteme lacks a participant designation, name the missing designation under that episteme. If a U.WorkPlan lacks a planned participant designation or planned value, name that missing plan content under the WorkPlan. Create a prospective repair request, future decision request, prospective work-plan entry, or explicit missing-source-relation note as applicable; none backdates support, establishes actual participation, or makes the direct relation obtain.

E.10:0.2c.9 - `model`, `diagram`, `screen`, `dashboard`, `table`, `note`, `memo`, `summary`, `explanation`

These are recognition examples, not kinds.

For unresolved model or explanation wording, recover the subject at issue and what the work needs to obtain or change. An explanation of a predictor may concern its behavior, its internal computation or the phenomenon it predicts. Constructing an account, expressing an available account and helping another agent acquire an ability can require different methods; one request may need more than one of these actions. Use the method that supplies the required result once the question is clear. If the object or relation remains unresolved, use E.10.ARCH:3.

When model hides the question, state what answer is sought from it. For example, a model of stated axioms is a structure satisfying those axioms; modeling an observed process may seek relations from which to derive predictions or compare interventions. The same mathematical construction can serve several modeling uses. Retain the subject’s vocabulary and notation when they already make that use clear.

For an unclear request to “run” or “execute” a model, recover how the model is interpreted for this question, how the answer is obtained, and who or what performs that operation. The operation may be reasoning with a diagram, solving constraints, running a simulation or experimenting with a physical analogue. A diagram’s reader can supply premises and an inference method that are absent from the drawing; recover the missing premise or inference operation when it changes the answer or another agent must reproduce the reasoning. B.5.FM helps construct the model, A.6.3.RT.OE makes an expression usable in the intended operation, and C.29.2 develops a computational formulation when computation is required. Use C.2.P.DR when the wording attributes an unsupported action to the representation itself.

A performance claim states what the agent does or can do. A claim that it uses a particular internal representation concerns how that performance is obtained. Use C.2.1 when the content and identity of an episteme are at issue; use the applicable subject method to establish a claimed physical or computational representation. Use E.17.EFP when ambiguity about source faithfulness changes how an expressed account may be used, and C.2.8 when recoverability by a recipient is the question.

When the wording concerns representation, publication or reliance, classify the occurrence as applicable:

episteme or episteme publication;
U.View, U.EpistemeView;
publication form;
generic publication face;
declared MVPK face;
PublicationUnit;
carrier, front-end, or rendering;
project-side FPF kind and reference named by value;
explanation and source-finding relation under E.17.EFP;
an A.10 descriptive account of evidence, currentness and provenance, with each relation independently established;
gate-bearing claim or effect under A.20 or A.21;
assurance and engineering-justification record under B.3;
work- or reliance-guiding appearance whose missing prerequisite is recovered under A.15.4.

Use the ordinary word once the surrounding text makes the intended object and use clear. Add an FPF kind name when that distinction changes the claim or the next action.

E.10:0.2c.10 - `reader`, `reviewer`, `author`, `operator`

Do not use people-position words as hidden kind names.

Use:

working reader or intended practitioner for ordinary usability;
engineer-manager when the FPF use case is the engineer-manager applying the pattern in work;
reviewer only for a participant in a named review relation; use review process, review gate, or review target for the process, gate, or object;
author only for authoring or editing work;
operator only after the claim is recovered: it may name an admitted system classified under an exact local OperatorSystemRole, a process or mathematical operator, an organizational or interface position, an ordinary title, or another direct relation; the word alone selects none;

If a text says “reader-facing” or “review-facing”, it also names what is facing that person: generic publication face, declared MVPK face, packet, document with named source-basis, evidence-basis, architecture-basis, or review-basis relation or use, PublicationUnit, carrier, or UI or front-end.

E.10:0.2c.11 - `owner`, `home`, `host`, `locus`

These are not interchangeable.

Keep owner as ordinary architectural, organizational, policy, source-maintenance, or stewardship wording when the sentence already makes the precise ownership or responsibility relation and its participants clear. Otherwise name that direct relation. Owner does not mean a system-role kind, U.SystemRoleAssignment, authority, or Work by default, and it is not a substitute for pattern, DRR, selected U.Episteme, exact EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence, publication form, publication unit, file carrier, or project record.

Split the actual claim into the smallest applicable value:

exact architectural, organizational, policy, source-maintenance, stewardship, ownership, or responsibility relation and participants;
relation to an FPF pattern or an authority-reference relation;
named source set used as authority for the claim;
file carrying FPF pattern text, file carrier, or publication unit;
evidence record or evidence source;
FPF pattern or project target;
support root; or
ordinary or quoted non-use when owner is only title-like wording; otherwise use the result selected through E.10.ROLE—for example, a local system-role kind and classification, a named U.SystemRoleAssignment occurrence, or another relation.

Never use owner to avoid deciding which of those claims the sentence makes.

E.10:0.2c.12 - `route`, `branch`, `handoff`, `path`, `trajectory`, `move`, `flow`

Recover the movement, control, and temporal relation set before using these words:

E.10.MOVE for project-move, first-move, working-move, next-move, pattern-use, work-entry-readiness, architecture-candidate-use, call-planning next-action, or other move-like wording whose direct FPF target is hidden;
A.16 local move;
A.16.0 trajectory account;
A.19, C.2.2a position in characteristic space or state space;
B.2.5 for a two-sided supervisor-subholon feedback relation; use the direct subject pattern for any other control or control-layer relation and C.30.LCA for a control-structure view;
process handoff;
selector relation or selection mechanism;
work transfer;
E.18 graph path or PathSlice expression;
A.6.3, A.6.4 episteme morphism or retargeting.

When handoff instead names an entity, package, result, delivery, transfer, acceptance, or receiving-use boundary, apply A.6.P.WMR to that exact relation-bearing claim. Use E.10.MOVE for a process-baton or project-move case only when that movement itself is current; a handoff record or package remains an episteme or another entity, not the transfer.

If no movement, control, and temporal relation is being made, keep the word ordinary and non-authorizing.

E.10:0.2c.13 - `use`, `supported use`, `action`, `effect`

These words are cues when the sentence hides who or what uses what, for which claim or action, and what changes as a result. State that ordinary sentence first. Pattern application can usually be written as Use P to ...; publication use, reliance, evidence, Work, gate, decision, and other governed uses go directly to their subject patterns once the object and relation are clear.

For a bounded or supported-use claim, name the admissible action and its basis. State an excluded adjacent or stronger use only when it satisfies the grounded-guard test in F.19:4. Do not turn a document into a generic capability or replace the sentence with an inventory of every nearby FPF kind.

Use C.2.P when a source or publication use remains hidden, A.6.P when a direct predicate or participant remains unclear, and E.10.ARCH when fact, declaration, report, and representation are still confused. Name relationClaimSlice or projectSideFPFRef only when the receiving claim actually consumes that identity.

E.10:0.2c.13a - `contribution`, `contributes`, `what it adds`

Use these words when the sentence makes clear what participates or is used, in which action or claim, and what is asserted about it. When that meaning is missing, restore the concrete statement before relying on the phrase. Contribution can remain an ordinary summary; the word supplies no common object kind or generic contributesTo relation.

Ambiguous wording	A concrete statement the reader can use
“The paper contributes to our method.”	“We use the paper’s calibration rule to choose the correction, under its stated interval assumption.” Name the passage and actual or proposed use. A citation alone establishes no use or evidence claim.
“This operation contributes to preparation.”	“Calculating the correction is a constituent of this preparation Method under its construction rule.” Use B.1.5 for Method parthood; describe performed Work separately when that is the claim.
“The test contributes evidence.”	State which test result supports which claim and under what limits, using A.10 when that evidence use is asserted. Evidence for a residual at sampled marks need not warrant the whole interval.
“The replacement adds value.”	Compare the realizable changed configuration with the present one under C.11.CRC when its finite-change question is current. Keep the affected results, resources, horizon and uncertainty visible.
“The author makes an original contribution.”	Name the new distinction, Method or explanation and the question it answers. E.8:11 compares that answer with alternatives; authorship alone establishes neither novelty nor practical superiority.

A supplied recording, its use by an analyst, a claimed causal effect and a comparison of two configurations need different statements. Use A.6.P when a predicate or participant remains hidden, C.2.P for an unresolved source/content/use distinction, and C.28 for a causal claim. C.11.CRC does not replace a comparison of source content with no realizable configuration change.

Stop with a clear ordinary sentence when that answers the question. A.6.REL and A.6.RSIR apply only when relation occurrence or declaration distinctions matter; E.24 applies to an actual admission question. Replacing contribution with input, result or support while leaving the same uncertainty is no repair.

E.10:0.2c.14 - `sign`, `concept`, `denotat`, and school-semiotic labels

Do not import the school-semiotic triad as architecture ontology. When a source or review text says sign, signifier, signified, concept, denotat, representamen, interpretant, or sign vehicle, apply the composite recovery order before the term appears in FPF-facing prose.

Possible recoveries include:

U.Episteme or episteme species named by value;
selected EntityOfConcern, grounding, reference-plane relation;
U.View, U.EpistemeView;
publication form, generic publication face, declared MVPK face, or PublicationUnit;
carrier, front-end, or rendering;
cue, displayed wording, mark, status display, credential display, provenance mark, signature evidence;
evidence record, gate record, work-state record, commitment record, separate assertion or occurrence-description episteme about one exact U.SystemRoleAssignment, or another project-side FPF kind and reference named by value;
FPF pattern, pattern section, accepted DRR, FPF publication, or FPF view when the object is on the FPF side.

Use concept only where current FPF already has the relevant concept-set, UTS, local-meaning, or Part F machinery available. Otherwise recover the claim-bearing episteme; the obtaining direct relation and actual participants; the current A.6.5 declaration, participant designation, or C.29 representation and explicit correspondence when one of those is actually present; or the record kind and defining rule named by value.

E.10:0.2c.15 - `pattern`, generic FPF-side object wording, `locus`, `row`, `target`

Pattern is not a free synonym for regularity. If the intended object is an FPF pattern, write FPF pattern or name the pattern and the definition, constraint, test or method being used. If it is not an FPF pattern, do not write recovered FPF construction as the final value. Choose one recovered value by sentence function: episteme, view, publication, publication form, generic publication face, declared MVPK face, PublicationUnit, carrier relation, front-end relation, project-side FPF kind and reference named by value, document with named source-basis, evidence-basis, architecture-basis, or review-basis relation or use, review target, obtaining direct relation and actual participants, receiver-needed relation occurrence, reusable RelationSignature and A.6.5 SlotSpec values, claim-bearing episteme with any current participant designations, C.29 representation element and explicit correspondence, C.11 ChoiceResult, C.11 decision record, A.6.A action invitation, A.15 U.WorkPlan, one A.15.1 dated Work occurrence admitted under U.Work or a separate episteme about it, U.Method, U.MethodDescription, A.20 constraint or adjudication decision record, A.21 GateDecisionResult, an optional A.21 DecisionLog, independently established evidence-use relation recovered through A.10, typed evidence record, B.3 assurance or engineering-justification record, or typed status record whose FPF status pattern is named.

Avoid generic FPF-side object wording, generic named-target wording, locus, row, and host when they hide kind. Use them only when the kind is literally a table row, document with named source-basis relation or use, file carrying FPF pattern text, or review target and the sentence does not need a narrower FPF kind. For FPF-facing wording that carries a claim being made, direct relation, admissible use, or remaining reader use, these are candidate recoveries, not a group kind: FPF pattern, pattern section, accepted DRR, FPF publication, FPF view, record kind with its defining rule, obtaining direct relation and actual participants, receiver-needed relation occurrence, claim-bearing episteme, reusable A.6.5 declaration, or C.29 representation and explicit correspondence. Choose one by sentence function and keep the different objects separate.

E.10:0.2c.16 - Union-field unpacking under A.6.P

Do not write authority-bearing FPF pattern, authority-bearing FPF row, FPF row named by value, selected FPF pattern, record, or relation, governing FPF relation, or required project record or action as final fields.

When one of these union-fields appears, make the A.6.P choice explicit:

if the sentence is making a relation claim, recover the RelationKind, actual participants, qualifiers, scope, time, viewpoint, and admissibility target, then state the obtaining direct relation and those participants; distinguish one relation occurrence only for a named receiving use; add a reusable RelationSignature and A.6.5 SlotSpec values only when declaration is current; and keep any claim-bearing row or field as an assertion episteme, participant designation, or C.29 representation and explicit correspondence as its own assertion or representation rather than as the relation itself;
if the sentence is not making one relation claim, unpack the wording and claim under repair into an FPF-side kind, reference, or relation named by value and one project-side FPF kind with its reference, or state that no project-side FPF kind is triggered;
if the same unpacking recurs across cases with one stable recovery shape, record a light A.6.P specialization candidate rather than minting a vocabulary-wide replacement field.

Apply this unpacking whenever a publication, display, cue, explanation, dashboard tile, schema, signature, badge, or generated output is being read as evidence, gate passage, work, deontic permission, work authorization, approval speech act, commitment, release authorization, safety assurance, evidence sufficiency, or engineering justification.

Do not fill one authoring union-field position with whichever nearby FPF kind is easiest to name. A project publication, claim-bearing episteme, or record with a named kind and defining rule is a description-side object; one A.15.1 dated Work occurrence admitted under U.Work is a world-side individual, while A.6.A action invitation, A.2.9 SpeechActRef, A.2.8 U.Commitment, U.Method, and U.MethodDescription belong to other kinds or relations.

E.10:0.2c.17 - Coordination and FPF-governed lists

Apply F.19 first: ask whether the receiving use needs a series at all. If one governing claim, relation, or representative case would do, write it and remove the catalogue. A broader umbrella head is not a repair.

When a series is needed and its FPF meaning remains unresolved, distinguish the current use:

a closed set, with its classified kind, membership rule, and closure;
illustrative examples, with the proposition or kind first and a non-exhaustive cue when completeness is plausibly ambiguous;
explicit alternatives or a sequence;
several obtaining direct relations, each with its actual participants;
a reusable relation declaration, with its RelationSignature and A.6.5 SlotSpec values; or
a C.29 representation, with its elements, represented objects, and correspondences.

If it declares reusable relation shapes, name each RelationSignature and A.6.5 SlotSpec value and do not infer that any relation obtains. If it is a C.29 tuple representation, name the representation elements, represented objects, and explicit correspondences; if the same material is also a reusable relation declaration, name its RelationSignature and A.6.5 SlotSpec values separately.

If none fits, leave the ontology or architecture question blocking instead of making the list itself a new kind. Even when one case fits, keep only members whose distinction changes the receiving use.

E.10:0.2c.18 - `strong`, `stronger`, `weak`, `weaker`, `support`

Use strength wording only when the sentence makes the comparison dimension clear. Examples of more precise wording:

stronger claim -> wider claim scope, higher evidence-basis threshold, gate or admission threshold, claim requiring world-contact evidence or authority relation, authority claim, or named evidence-support class;
weaker claim -> narrower claim scope, lower evidence-support class, bounded admissible act, work, or claim, source-loss mode under A.6.3.CSC when a source-to-rendering loss is being claimed, coarsened rendering, or explicit abstain or reopen condition;

A named scale, evidence class, threshold, or CharacteristicSpace supplies the comparison when that is the dimension used.