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.