E.10:9 - Ontology recovery rows for overloaded words (LEX L-rules; normative)

What this section does. LEX L-rules standardise how we recover kind and use in Core and local uses when overloaded everyday words hide FPF concepts. What this section does not do. It does not restate naming (see § 7 MG-DA) or morphology, casing, and suffix rules (see § 8 LEX.Morph); it depends on them. Guards. Tokens are classified by LEX.TokenClass ∈ {KernelToken, ContextToken, DiscriminatorToken} (§ 7.1). Only CHR:ReferencePlane may use the bare word plane. E.10.D2 keeps the EntityOfConcern, an episteme that describes it, and specification use of that episteme distinct; specification use needs a granting gate named by value. Publication faces, publication forms, PublicationUnits, carriers, and renderings stay separate. An enumeration becomes a CHR construction only when it names a U.Characteristic with one declared CSLC scale. Without that declaration, recover the exact construction instead of defaulting to a non-measurable attribute: it may be source wording, a C.29 field or other representation element, an example set, unresolved alternatives, a status or state-frame value set, a local kind or classifier, or another value whose kind and definition are already known. It becomes an A.6.5 SlotSpec only inside one exact reusable RelationSignature.

E.10:9.1 - Hard bans and ontology recovery rows (single table; normative)

Use this table as a recovery guide. “Ban” means the listed phrase is not accepted as an unexplained Tech term in Core prose, identifiers, or diagrams. It may remain as ordinary, quoted, or source-local wording when its use is clear; otherwise name the recovered value or relation. EntityOfConcern and Description-episteme boundaries, specification-use gates, and token gates prevent object, description, specification-use, publication-position, and TokenClass leaks (cf. § 8.1).

Red and Green pattern (example). ✗ “The process ensures quality.” → ✓ “M_quality : U.Method names the recovered way of doing. D_quality is U.MethodDescription only because it is a separately identified claim-bearing episteme whose EntityOfConcern is M_quality and whose claims state the method’s steps and applicability. Evaluate dated Work against the applicable acceptance condition, constraint, or commitment.”

E.10:9.2 - Diagnostic examples, not substitutions

Use these rows only after the compact cue surface selects the named lexical problem. Accept a repaired sentence when its object, head kind, relation or claim, use, and scope are preserved, the applicable § 7 or § 8 rule passes, and the changed sentence passes the local F.19 reread. If an example would change the kind in the current sentence, split the claim or leave a blocker; do not copy it as a ready-made rewrite.

E.10:9.3 - Acceptance tests (LEX‑AC)

A text passes LEX if all answers are Green:

1. Action-changing use recovered. Each use of context that changes interpretation or action names the exact source, scheme, scope, model-use structure, situation, frame, referent, or practice that matters. Ordinary, quoted, and already defined uses remain available.
2. Right EntityOfConcern and Description-episteme boundary and specification use. EntityOfConcern, Description-episteme, specification-use, publication relation, and run-record uses are not conflated (cf. § 8.1 gates).
3. Promise, ability, and performance split. PromiseContent (promise clause), Capability (ability), Work (performance) are not conflated.
4. Agentive predicates and metonymy. A doubtful agentive or causal predicate—including a negated one—calls for the whole-span F.19 check. Retain ordinary, unambiguous metonymy; otherwise state the capable participant or the exact non-agentive relation. Add a denial only for a grounded plausible misreading whose correction matters.
5. Scheduling hygiene. No actuals belong in a U.WorkPlan. A performed occurrence is admitted as dated U.Work from its independent A.13/A.15.1 basis. A complete A.13/A.15.1/F.6 basis is required only when the receiving use additionally claims precise assignment-bound attribution; missing F.6 does not revoke Work. Other direct facts, including affected referent, bindings, and resource use, remain separate. A short attribution sentence may omit only an assignment identifier unused by its receiving claim; the underlying occurrence and attribution remain recoverable. An assertion, description, log, or record about the Work is a separate episteme, not the occurrence.
6. Cross-local relation. When the text relates two different local senses, it identifies the exact F.17 cells and cites an F.9 Bridge only if that direct relation obtains under the applicable F.9 relation profile. When a receiving use is current, a separate C.2.1 claim says what action is proposed, its use direction, correspondence rule, tolerated loss, and polarity. That claim does not show that the action occurred. Use A.10 or B.3 only when reliance or assurance is actually current. Apply A.6.9 (RPR-XCTX) when published wording such as “same”, “equivalent”, “align”, or “map” still hides the relation.
7. MG-DA ok. New or refactored tokens pass § 7 MG-DA (anchored head noun; collision check; an enumeration names its closed value set, classified kind, and classification rule; use U.Characteristic and CharacteristicSpace only when the enumeration is the declared CSLC scale of that exact Characteristic).
8. Morphology ok. Suffix, compound, prefix, and casing respect § 8 LEX.Morph (for example, concrete …SystemRole kind designations, MethodDescription, Work, and reserved prefixes); bare ...Role is not a default Tech form.
9. Banned tokens absent or recovered. No process, practice, function, task, or activity in Kernel senses unless the sentence applies the selected recovery pattern (A.3.4.P, A.6.F, work patterns, method patterns, C.36.P, or another relevant pattern) and names the recovered value by value; no tooling or file suffixes in Kernel tokens.
10. State gating present (when needed). Readiness of an assignment to a system role is expressed through SystemRoleAssignmentStateRelation plus a separate SystemRoleAssignmentStateAssertion when an assertion is needed, not through vague “approved” or “ready” wording.

E.10:9.4 - Coordination map (how LEX plugs into the rest of FPF)

• With E.10.D1 — Recovering What “Context” Means in Use. E10-CTX-1: When context changes the statement or next action, recover what supplies the boundary—for example, a value, relation, scope, scheme, situation, or use defined by the relevant pattern. E10-CTX-2: For source-local meaning, state the exact source, expression, effective scheme, and local sense. Create F.17 cells when stable addresses are needed; use F.9 only for an obtaining direct Bridge between two exact cells, and keep every proposed use and reliance claim separate.

• With E.10.D2 (EntityOfConcern and Description-episteme boundary and specification use and refinement discipline). Speak in the right EntityOfConcern and Description-episteme boundary and specification use. E10-EOC-DESC-SPEC-1..3 apply: the EntityOfConcern is named directly; Description suffixes name Description-episteme use; Spec suffixes name specification use on a Description episteme; a work assertion or description is a separate U.Episteme about one Work individual and is not the occurrence; a state assertion is a separately governed claim about a state and is not that state; an evaluation-result episteme is neither the evaluated object nor an occurrence. Upgrade a Description episteme to specification use only when checkable acceptance or another specification-granting gate named by value exists.

• With E.10.ROLE, A.2, A.2.1, and A.15 (system-role-kind, assignment, Method, and Work alignment). Bare role has no default Tech reading. A local system-role kind classifies independently admitted systems; classification, assignment, and Work remain separate. U.Method is a way of doing; U.MethodDescription is a claim-bearing episteme about one admitted method that passes A.3.2. A performed occurrence is dated U.Work: A.15.1 admits it first from its actual performer basis, Method, time, and containing System; F.6 follows only for precise assignment-bound attribution. A compact attribution account keeps the Work basis and all performers named or recoverable and may omit only an assignment identifier unused by the receiving claim after attribution is established. Assertions, descriptions, logs, and records about the occurrence are separate epistemes.

• With F‑cluster (Unification) and UTS (F.17). Recover each source-local cell under its effective scheme. A comparison row may cite direct Bridges, losses, contrasts, and separately warranted use claims; the row creates none of them. UTS is the human-readable term publication.

Acts and tokens. LEX applies to tokens; USM applies to acts: mint, rename, and use. Conformance: LEX.TokenClass(t)=c ⇒ USM.Scope(usage) ∈ AllowedScopes(c) (see § 7.5).

E.10:9.5 - Conformance checklist (LEX‑CC)

1. LEX‑CC‑1 (Triggered use, not spelling ban). A listed word opens repair only when its FPF-governed use hides a kind, relation, claim, or action; quoted, ordinary, and already precise uses remain available.
2. LEX‑CC‑2 (Context wording). After E.10.D1, each action-changing use of context names what supplies the relevant boundary, interpretation, or situation and makes the next action or stop clear.
3. LEX‑CC‑3 (EntityOfConcern and Description-episteme boundary and specification-use morphology). Usage passes § 8 gates (suffix, prefix, and casing), EntityOfConcern and Description-episteme boundary checks, and specification-use checks.
4. LEX-CC-4 (Cross-local relation). Recover the exact relation being asserted between local senses. Cite an F.9 Bridge only when its direct predicate obtains between identified cells; any proposed use and reliance remain separate. Shared spelling establishes none of them.
5. LEX‑CC‑5 (MG-DA). New tokens pass MG-DA tests, including full‑text collision and Reserved‑Names checks.
6. LEX‑CC‑6 (Service, acceptance, and evidence). Service or access wording establishes neither Work nor acceptance. An acceptance claim names the selected criterion episteme, any evaluation or acceptance Work that applied it, the returned value or result episteme, and the acceptance predicate with its participants under the applicable acceptance pattern; delivery Work, evidence, or a positive display proves none by itself. Evidence use is a relation over an Episteme, target claim or use, scope, polarity, time, and provenance under the evidence pattern.
7. LEX‑CC‑7 (USM compatibility). For each LexicalAct, USM.Scope ∈ AllowedScopes(LEX.TokenClass).
8. LEX-CC-8 (Naming discipline). If overload cleanup yields one local replacement phrase, the text records the repaired phrase and applicable local repair pattern. If cleanup yields one durable reusable name, the text first records the applicable F.8 decision for the already identified value, then completes an F.18 NameCard; public, Core-facing, durable, or cross-local publication also supplies the F.17 term row. Intuition-first labels, partial NameCards, and naming acts that substitute for value or kind admission are non-conformant.

E.10:9.6 - Worked micro‑examples (short, cross‑domain)

Factory. ✗ “The process failed; the service restarted itself.” ✓ The compact strings PLC_17#ObserverRole:PipelineOps, CAB_Chair#ApproverRole:ChangeControl, and OpsBot#DeployerRole:CD_Pipeline_v7 remain quoted source cues only. Start with E.10.ROLE; they are neither system-role-kind designations nor assignment occurrences. PLC_17, ChangeControlBoardSystem, and OpsBot are independently admitted systems. Use ObserverSystemRole, ApproverSystemRole, and DeployerSystemRole only where those classifications matter. For each precise dated Work occurrence, recover the exact actual performer through A.13 and let A.15.1 independently admit the occurrence. Add F.6 only when the example or receiving use expressly consumes precise assignment-bound attribution through the same obtaining A.13 assignment; F.6 identifies neither assignment nor performer, and missing or failed F.6 leaves the Work intact. Omit only assignment identifiers that the receiving example does not use. Source suffixes and interpretation epistemes remain separate. The exact dated Work occurrences remain separate from covering assignments and F.6 attributions, and all three remain separate from the log episteme, approval speech-act content, and fulfillment claim. Assignment and F.6 references appear only in an expressly consumed attribution branch. Cloud. ✗ “The process owner approved; the API service deployed.” ✓ The source strings ProductLead#AuthorizerRole:Rollout_2025 and sCG‑Spec_ci_bot#DeployerRole:CD_Pipeline_v7 remain quoted cues. Recover ProductLeadershipSystem and sCGSpecCIBot independently; use AuthorizerSystemRole and DeployerSystemRole only for exact local classification claims. For RolloutApprovalWork-F123 and DeployWork-F123, recover each exact actual performer through A.13 and let A.15.1 independently admit each dated Work occurrence. Add F.6 only when this account or its receiving use expressly consumes precise assignment-bound attribution through the same obtaining A.13 assignment; F.6 identifies neither assignment nor performer, and missing or failed F.6 leaves the Work intact. Omit only assignment identifiers that the receiving account does not use. Keep source titles, source or scheme cues, approval content, deployment results, and telemetry separate, and identify each through the rule for that value or relation. RESTAccessMethod : U.Method names the exact API access method; RESTAccessDescription is U.MethodDescription only if its claim content substantively describes that method as its exact EntityOfConcern, and it is an access Spec only after the named specification-use gate. Any selected description edition is reached through a separate governed U.EpistemeRef, while file or carrier version remains separate. FeatureAccessPromiseContent states the acceptance condition; telemetry measurements provide evidence for the evaluation that the deployment fulfilled that promise content.

Research. ✗ “Dataset X proves the theory; the process is reproducible.” ✓ DatasetX supports claim C only under the applicable evidence rule, with model-fit scope, polarity, time and provenance stated. Use A.10 to recover its exact source and independently established support/use relations; use B.3, G.6, F.10 or another subject pattern only for the result that pattern defines; replication is recorded through evidence-use, source-use, status-use, or reproducibility-status relations under their respective patterns; procedure wording first recovers one exact U.Method; a separately identified claim-bearing episteme is U.MethodDescription only when that method is its exact EntityOfConcern and its claims pass A.3.2, while re-runs are exact Work occurrences only on the A.15.1 basis.

Semioarchitecture. ✗ “projection has one meaning in routing and bridge prose.” ✓ A.16 keeps projection as a move name for route-bounded partialization; F.9.1 keeps projection as a bridge stance label. If one durable reusable replacement name is really needed, recover the value and use that need a name, record the applicable F.8 decision, and then use F.18 plus F.17 when public publication is current; otherwise retain the source expression or local phrase explicitly rather than flattening both interpretations into one umbrella rewrite.

Editorial note. This section inherits section 7 MG-DA (anchored head nouns; enumeration rule gate; U.Characteristic and CharacteristicSpace only when one named Characteristic has that enumeration as its declared CSLC scale; collision checks) and section 8 LEX.Morph (suffix, prefix, and casing). It deliberately omits their details to avoid duplication. The only admitted uses of plane in the Core are CHR:ReferencePlane and the derived operators CL^plane and Phi_plane; policy flags do not introduce new planes. To distinguish pre-operational and operational states within ReferencePlane=world, use WorldRegime in {prep | live} (formerly PlaneRegime).

E.10:9.7 - Guarded-head cross-reference (normative lexical caution)

When one wording head already carries several FPF-governed local interpretations, lexical cleanup should prefer a guarded-head note over silent flattening. The note may record that the head remains risky, name the cited texts or patterns that define or constrain the local interpretations, and point readers to the local canonical interpretation in each cited text.

If cleanup reveals that no admissible existing token can carry the needed meaning, use the local repair pattern for one-off wording. If the change needs one durable reusable name, first recover the value and its kind and record the applicable F.8 decision, then use F.18 for the NameCard and F.17 when public, Core-facing, durable, or cross-local publication is current. Do not invent an ad hoc synonym or let naming settle an unresolved object.

This cross-reference is lexical only. It does not create a new repair-side definition site, does not establish global or cross-local equivalence, and does not overrule cited local definitions. It simply keeps overloaded heads from being normalized into one false global interpretation.

projection is the main current example: A.16 keeps it as a move name for route-bounded partialization, while F.9.1 keeps it as a bridge stance label. E.10 therefore uses deconfliction notes and explicit naming of the cited text that governs each local interpretation, not one umbrella rewrite that erases the distinction.

Bare claim-bearing role is another guarded head and has no default Tech reading. Use E.10.ROLE to recover the current object or relation; use SystemRole only inside a concrete local system-role-kind designation after that kind is independently admitted.