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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

Treat support as a cue to write the concrete subject, predicate, object, and use. If that sentence states a clear direct relation, use the pattern that defines or constrains it. If the predicate or a participant remains unclear, use A.6.P; if both are clear and no current pattern supplies the rule, use A.6.RCD. Use A.6.6 when the claim is specifically basedness.

When the phrase carries a bounded-use claim, state the admissible action. Add a stronger or adjacent non-use only when it satisfies the grounded-guard test in F.19:4. A support-headed durable name reaches F.18 only after the governed object and use are settled; otherwise replace the head locally or leave the meaning blocked.

E.10:0.2c.19 - Applying patterns versus procedural calls

FPF patterns provide reusable guidance for recognizable problem situations. In ordinary prose, apply pattern P is acceptable metonymy for a person or system using the method, rule, test, constraint, or lookup described by P; the pattern itself does not perform the project action.

Ordinary application. Name the recognizable problem, state which rule, test or method the reader uses from the pattern, and state the resulting action or judgement. An ordinary PatternID citation is enough when the reader only needs to find that explanation. Do not require an ontology, conformance claim or section, exact assertion, ClaimGraph, or formal application record merely to use the guidance.

Identity-sensitive application. Open this branch only when a named live alternative or receiving use changes truth, action, stop, interpretation, migration, publication, reuse, or reliance. Name that dependency first, then add only the identity it needs: for example, the exact pattern edition, ontology, conformance claim or section, governed object, claim-bearing episteme, obtaining relation and participants, current declaration, or representation and correspondence.

Use apply pattern, use the pattern guidance, the pattern applies to this problem situation, or the case falls under this pattern for the ordinary FPF-side use. These expressions do not assert that the pattern acts.

Do not leave project action as final wording when it hides a distinction that changes the current claim or use. For ordinary project-side activity, say plainly who does what and what result or judgement follows. When a current claim or receiving use depends on formal classification, choose exactly one applicable kind or relation: U.Method; U.MethodDescription; U.Mechanism; A.15 U.WorkPlan; one A.15.1 dated Work occurrence admitted under U.Work; a separate claim-bearing episteme asserting a fact about that Work occurrence; exact entity plus a direct relation involving that occurrence recovered through A.6.P.WMR; exact A.6.1 operation-application binding; local A.15.PROD claim; measurement-result episteme; evaluation or diagnostic finding; C.11 ChoiceResult; C.11 decision record; A.6.A action invitation; 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; typed status record whose FPF status pattern is named; carrier relation; front-end relation; or another accepted project-side FPF kind.

Keep route, path, branch, handoff, trajectory, move, or flow as ordinary navigation wording when no FPF movement, control, or temporal claim depends on it. When such a claim is current, name the relevant movement, control, and temporal relations and use the pattern that defines them.

E.10:0.2c.20 - FPF-side and project-side epistemes and publications

Semioarchitecture often talks about two different groups of epistemes, publications, records, and uses:

• FPF-side material: FPF as episteme, FPF patterns, pattern sections, DRRs, FPF publications, FPF views, support documents and documents with named source-basis, evidence-basis, architecture-basis, or review-basis relations or uses, and review targets;
• project-side material: the engineer-manager’s project epistemes, publications, views, records, carriers, cues, evidence records, A.20 constraint or adjudication decision records, A.21 gate decisions, optional A.21 DecisionLog records, B.3 assurance or engineering-justification records, commitments, one A.15.1 dated Work occurrence admitted under U.Work plus any separate episteme about it, C.11 ChoiceResult values, C.11 decision records, and A.6.A action invitations.

Do not blur them with source, artifact, object, material, target, pattern, or broad semiosis. If both sides are being used, split the sentence to make the relation explicit when a relation claim is being made, the admissible-use boundary when a boundary-use claim is being made, and the project-side FPF kind and reference named by value when that side is being used. Record the corresponding values in relationClaimSlice, admissibleUse, and projectSideFPFRef, respectively, only when the receiving claim needs those named fields. For an unused side, record absence only when a named receiving use must distinguish it from missing information.

E.10:0.2c.21 - decision, action, work, method, plan

Do not let action cover every project-side event. An action nominal such as testing, assembly, maintenance, evaluation, or inspection is a morphology cue, not a kind. Placement in function- or flow-structure prose identifies no U.Function: apply A.6.F when the function-like use remains claim-bearing and its FPF object or relation is hidden; otherwise name the already recovered method, method description, required-transformation or required-effect claim, actual U.Transformation, TransformationFlowStructure locus, functional-view record, plan content, exact Work occurrence, or other value under the pattern that defines it. A WBS element, activity, or Work Package remains plan- or assignment-episteme content about intended work; none of these uses identifies an actual Work occurrence admitted under U.Work.

Split decision-making and decision records under C.11; local system-role-kind classification under A.2; U.SystemRoleAssignment occurrences under A.2.1; Method under A.3; planned work and WorkPlan under A.15.2; dated Work occurrences under A.15.1; actual launch or performed values under obtaining direct relations or A.6.1 bindings; separate performed-work, finalization, result, telemetry, and gate records under the patterns that define them; action invitation under A.6.A; communicative acts under A.2.9; commitments under A.2.8; and strong grants under A.2.8.PER. A method-description field, planned filling, compatible type, ticket, or nearby result record establishes no actual participant relation.

A reusable name for performed work goes to F.18 only after A.13 and A.15.1 independently admit the Work occurrence from its actual performer basis, time, Method, and containing System. If the reusable account also needs precise assignment-bound attribution, establish F.6 afterward through the same obtaining assignment. Keep the affected referent, application bindings, resource use, and other direct facts separately recoverable. Add a continuity policy only when occurrence identity matters. Keep production, measurement, evaluation, delivery, acceptance, and downstream-effect claims under their direct patterns.

P2W language from E.18 transformation-flow structure is not a generic source-to-work slogan. Use it only when the chain from principles, theories, and signatures through method choice, work planning, work execution, separate measurement or evaluation, and cycle return is actually being made.

E.10:0.2c.21a - method and its contextual synonyms

Preferred explanatory name. Use method as the main Plain word for a reusable way of doing something. It makes the question “Which method are you using?” easier to distinguish from a question about the work currently being performed. Use U.Method when the technical kind matters, under A.3.1. This naming preference applies to explanations; it preserves clear professional terminology and does not change the ontology.

Way, practice, pattern or template of work, workflow, culture, style, technology, strategy, a kind of labour, activity or engineering, and sometimes function can refer to a method in a particular sentence. They are contextual synonyms with useful nuances, not global identities. For example, style may foreground how a way is performed, and practice may foreground its established professional use. Recover the actual claim through A.3.1 before deciding whether another kind is meant.

Retain practice/practise in professional expressions and in ordinary accounts of practising to acquire capability. A concrete Work occurrence, community, discipline, transmitted tradition, tool or description keeps its actual kind. Neither a synonym list nor a preferred word turns it into a Method. Conversely, writing practice, culture and method in one account supplies no basis for inventing three distinct entities.

Apply this preference when authoring or repairing the explanation, with F.19’s whole-span reading. Ordinary synonyms do not each require a registered Plain Twin. E.10.ARCH supplies a deeper route only when the actual kind or relation remains unresolved.

E.10:0.2c.22 - Whole-corpus trigger use

When a whole-corpus cleanup is selected, use this pattern’s trigger guide over claim-bearing FPF text and project text that deliberately uses FPF-governed terms, pattern references, relation names, or conformance claims.

Do not perform a global string replacement. Use search only to locate candidates; read each natural span through F.19, preserve accepted FPF names unless a separate naming decision changes them, and let the selected review or campaign carry corpus coverage.

E.10:0.2c.23 - case, scenario, example, pilot, anti-case

Use F.19 to decide whether the text needs several cases, whether each changes recognition or action, and whether an illustrative series could plausibly be mistaken for a complete classification. State the proposition or kind first and mark examples as non-exhaustive when that ambiguity is live.

If the word also carries an exact FPF use, name that use directly—for example a project situation, worked example, pilot, negative control, evidence case, comparison case, or source example—and apply its subject pattern. Do not reproduce this menu in the repaired prose.

A case may illustrate or test a pattern. It becomes evidence, a decision basis, a source basis, or another governed object only through the relation and rule that establish that use, not through the label case itself.

E.10:0.2c.24 - basis, context, scope, frame

These words can hide different subject questions; they do not name one common kind.

• For basis, name the source or direct relation actually used by the sentence—for example, a decision, evidence, comparison, threshold, grounding, or admissibility relation.
• For context, apply E.10.D1 and recover the subject-defined content that changes the action—for example, a scheme, scope, model-use structure, situation, design-time or run-time referent, architecture, environment, domain subject, or local-practice use.
• For scope, use A.2.6 when an actual claim scope and its slice-membership facts are current; otherwise use the subject pattern for the stated extent or boundary.
• For frame, say what the word refers to—for example, a viewpoint, reference frame, comparison frame, state frame, or ordinary narrative framing.

If a basis changes what may be done, state the admissible use. State a relation claim or project-side FPF reference only when the sentence actually makes that claim. If context hides the EntityOfConcern, recover that entity and the subject relation before any Bridge, parity, or identity claim.

E.10:0.2c.24a - translation and multilingual heads

A bilingual alias is not a Bridge by itself and does not create equivalence, substitution, UTS admission, or a cross-local naming relation.

When translated wording has FPF-governed use, recover the FPF kind named by value, local head, publication construction, source relation, and admissible use before accepting the translation. A translated explanation is a derivative rendering; operative claims need claim-bound source relations and E.17.EFP or A.10 when reliance use is being made. A translated PublicationUnit may preserve form while shifting its primary subject or carried publication move; apply E.17.AUD or E.17.AUD.OOTD when that shift is being claimed. Local translated heads may use E.17.AUD.LHR or C.2.P without full F.18 unless durable cross-local naming, a UTS row, a Core-facing term, or a reusable FPF head is intended.

E.10:0.2c.25 - state, status, posture, readiness

E.10 only recognizes the wording problem; it does not duplicate the recovery procedure. If readiness or ready still hides which governed value is meant, use E.10.MOVE. It exits to A.19.SPR only for a hidden bearer and state frame, to A.2.5 for an assignment-state condition, to A.15.5 for work-entry readiness, to A.21 for a distinct gate decision, or to another direct pattern for the recovered claim.

For other state-family wording, use the direct pattern when the exact object and claim are already clear. Use A.19.SPR only while the object, state frame, or value remains hidden. Close with an ordinary statement of the recovered object and claim under that pattern; introduce a predicate only when the pattern defines or needs one. Otherwise keep ordinary prose, quote-only wording, a reduced-use cue, or a blocker.

E.10:0.2c.25a - live, current, active, and status or article overwrap

live, current, active, open, pending, and similar status-like modifiers are trigger wording when they attach to pattern, record, object, field, operation, route, locus, move, text, claim, question, use, or relation without saying which exact bearer and state or currentness value, temporal qualifier of an obtaining direct relation or assertion, source or use relation, or claim function the modifier adds.

First recover whether the modifier expresses a real FPF value:

• If readiness or ready still hides which governed value is meant, use E.10.MOVE; use A.19.SPR only if that recovery leaves a hidden bearer and state frame. For source currentness, another state or status, publication-use disposition, quality result, admission state, campaign state, or process state, use C.2.P, E.9.DA, E.21, E.19, the release or process carrier, A.19.SPR while its object or state frame remains hidden, or the direct pattern for the recovered value.
• If it means a claim, question, use, or relation is currently asserted, relied on, or action-bearing in the described situation, keep the modifier only when the sentence also names the claim or claim-bearing episteme, obtaining relation or source/use relation, admissible use, and—when needed—the pattern that defines it, or says why ordinary prose is enough.
• If it only points to “the thing under discussion”, treat it as phrase-level apparatus and apply F.19: write the pattern, pattern of concern, record kind named by value, affected field, operation claim, relation claim, or other object named by value instead of live X.
• If it is development, review, projection, landing, or current-campaign state about an FPF pattern version, keep it in the process, quality, projection, release, or campaign carrier rather than in the pattern unless that state is the pattern’s own primary EntityOfConcern.

Deleting live or replacing it with another status word is useful only when the changed sentence now states the ordinary bearer and claim. Otherwise recover the governed state, currentness, temporal, source-use, or relation value, or leave the meaning blocked; then rerun the local F.19 reading.

E.10:0.2c.26 - claim, evidence, witness, ground, proof

Claim is not a synonym for sentence or prose. Evidence is not a synonym for source, proof, approval, or confidence.

For claim, recover:

• claim-bearing episteme;
• claim node, claim content;
• EntityOfConcern or claim referent;
• viewpoint and representation scheme when needed for the claim;
• admissibility target when the claim is used.

For evidence-like words, recover:

• evidence record or evidence-provenance relation;
• witness or source pin;
• grounding relation;
• validation result;
• assurance argument component;
• provenance mark only as provenance, not as evidence by itself.

If evidence is being read as engineering justification, gate passage, deontic permission, work authorization, safety assurance, evidence sufficiency, release authorization, or release confidence, apply the FPF pattern for that stronger claim or use the project-side FPF kind and reference named by value instead of strengthening the evidence word.

E.10:0.2c.27 - authority, permission, approval, commitment, obligation

These are deontic claims or claims carrying an authority-reference relation, not visual or rhetorical properties.

Recover: