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).
| L‑rule | Ambiguous or low-precision word (Ban) | Canonical FPF target(s) | EntityOfConcern and Description-episteme boundary and specification-use gate | TokenClass gate | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L-PROC | process, practice, procedure, workflow, activity, a process-like function step, or method-structure wording | First decide what the sentence is about. Use A.3.4.P for a change situation and U.Method for one way of doing. Name composition, substitution, iteration, fallback, selection, family membership, or another method-side relation under the rule that defines it. Only when a named use depends on how several such relations are organized should the practitioner use A.22’s criterion to select a structure, locally called MethodRelationStructure. Use U.MethodDescription only for an episteme whose EntityOfConcern is one admitted Method and whose claims substantially describe how to perform it. Keep a planning cue or schedule representation as such until A.15.2 admits a U.WorkPlan; use U.Work only for dated performance, and a separate episteme for its record. After E.10.ROLE, recover a local system-role kind and classification, an obtaining U.SystemRoleAssignment, or an A.2.7 relation only when work-facing wording actually states it. Other branches include an A.1.1 BoundedModelUseStructure when model-use organization changes the answer, an exact source, practice, scope, situation, discipline or cultural-evolution use, U.Transformation, TransformationFlowStructure, and C.29 notation. | Method, direct method-side relation, optional A.22-selected method relation structure, one-method Description episteme, other subject-description episteme, planning cue or WorkPlan, Work occurrence or Work record, system-role kind and classification, assignment, relation among system-role kinds, model-use structure, source or practice boundary, discipline or source label, Transformation or transformation-flow structure, or selected lens | KernelToken for admitted kinds; ContextToken for admitted local-use designations, occurrences, and records; lens or register when representation is current | A phrase such as “industrial process as line role” first uses E.10.ROLE; it creates neither a system nor a ...SystemRole kind. Chemistry enters U.Transformation, U.Dynamics, or Method only after the claim is recovered. Practice is not a root kind, and procedural, planning, or document form establishes neither U.Method, U.MethodDescription, nor U.WorkPlan. |
| L-FUNC | function, functional, functionality, effect | Apply A.6.F first when kind or relation is hidden. Possible recovered values include a qualified holder-ability claim under A.2.2, U.PromiseContent, U.Method, one dated Work occurrence admitted under U.Work, mathematical function or operator under C.29, and functional-architecture or architecture-to-TransformationFlowStructure relation under C.30, C.30.ASV, or C.30.TFS-REL. | EntityOfConcern is the holder System for an ability claim; otherwise recover PromiseContent, Method, Work occurrence, mathematical object, architecture relation, or transformation-flow relation; any record about Work remains a separate Description episteme | KernelToken or ContextToken according to the recovered value and use | Never use function as a Core kind name or as default architecture meaning. |
| L-SERV | service or access-like wording used for provision, a team, software process, deployed component, endpoint, application, host, cluster, access point, offering, ticket, case, Method, or Work | Apply this row only when relied-on FPF wording hides the concrete subject, participant, predicate, kind, permission, Work occurrence, or next question. Bare service has no default system reading: ordinary wording may name service-provision Work, a Method, PromiseContent, participation, or another direct claim, while software wording may be metonymic for a process, deployed component, endpoint, application, host, or cluster. Apply E.10 and A.6.P:4.11a to recover the hidden choice. Quoted, historical, illustrative, or harmless prose remains outside. | Carry the original wording and relied-on use into A.6.P:4.11a. The recovered object and relation establish what the claim is about; the applicable pattern supplies any EntityOfConcern/Description-episteme boundary or specification-use gate. Use A.1.SCR only after A.6.P has named a bearer claim and the decision depends on systemhood; E.10 supplies neither classification nor a new kind. | Keep the source token’s register and class until the claim is recovered; no TokenClass choice admits a kind. | Ask what stopped, what is provided, how it is provided, or which bearer must be restarted. Do not normalize service to server/system, Method, Work, PromiseContent, permission, or fulfilment. If the concrete subject, relation, or dependent use still cannot be named, stop the relied-on use. Record missing-governor[...] only after participants, needed predicate sentence, and dependent use are named but no current pattern supplies that predicate. |
| L-SLA | SLA or service level agreement used for an SLO, accountable undertaking, published terms, or a document | Unpack acceptance thresholds into U.PromiseContent.acceptanceSpec; accountable obligations or penalties into U.Commitment; the packaged SLA through A.6.C into its separate promise, utterance or publication, commitment, Work or consequence, and evidence claims; and published terms into a speech act plus clause episteme. Keep Work, measurement, evidence, and acceptance verdicts separate. | EntityOfConcern side for PromiseContent, Commitment, and any actual Work; episteme side for clauses, specifications, measurements, evidence, records, and verdicts | KernelToken, ContextToken, or DiscriminatorToken according to the recovered value and use | Treat SLA as polysemic shorthand, never one kind or Work record. |
| L-SCHED | schedule, plan, or calendar as execution | Keep a schedule, planned window, or calendar as source wording, a planning cue, or a representation until one exact episteme passes A.15.2’s present-EntityOfConcern, horizon, PlanItem, and substantive-coordination predicate; only then use U.WorkPlan. For actual performance, identify one Work individual independently under A.15.1; telemetry, actuals assertions, and run records remain separate epistemes about obtaining facts. | Source or representation until the gate; Description episteme for an admitted WorkPlan and for records versus world-side Work occurrence | ContextToken only after the local-use designation or record is admitted | Never infer U.WorkPlan from an intent window or schedule label, attach actuals to a plan, treat telemetry as Work, or store actual relations as occurrence fields. |
| L-ACT | activity, action, task, or step as type | Recover the actual object before choosing the value: one dated U.Work occurrence; a separate work-record episteme when only a record is current; U.Method only for an independently recovered submethod of a composite Method; a C.29 representation element or claim-content constituent when the step appears only in code, diagram, recipe, or procedure; U.MethodDescription only when the claim-bearing episteme has one exact U.Method as EntityOfConcern and passes A.3.2; or a planning cue or PlanItem inside an admitted U.WorkPlan. If only order, fallback, substitution, or dispatch is current, name that direct method-side relation; use an A.22-selected MethodRelationStructure only when the receiving use depends on how several such relations are organized. | Work occurrence, record episteme, Method, direct method-side relation, representation or claim-content constituent, MethodDescription, planning content, or optional selected method relation structure | ContextToken for an admitted local-use designation, occurrence, or record; otherwise the token class of the recovered value | Reserve assign for an exact system-role assignment, satisfy for the A.2.5 assignment-state predicate, perform for Work, actuate for a System, and approve for the exact speech-act use. A verb, visible step, or planned-item label defines none of those objects by form. |
| L‑AGENT | agent, actor, or doer (bare) | Recover the acting entity and admit it as U.System only when A.1 passes. Ordinary actor wording may stay ordinary when no precise agency or Work claim is consumed. For a precise Agent claim, apply A.13: exact local agential system-role kind and criterion, classification, obtaining assignment, scope, working situation, window, and adequate core evidence; add a characteristic profile only for a consumed Grade, autonomy or profile result, criterion-dependent characteristic, or assurance use. For performed Work, A.15.1 then independently admits the dated occurrence from its actual performer basis, Method, time, and containment. Only afterward does F.6 establish any precise assignment-bound attribution through the same obtaining assignment. A compact attribution rewrite keeps the combined basis recoverable and may omit only an unused assignment identifier after attribution is established. | Acting entity or admitted System; optional A.13 local-kind/classification/assignment claim; independently admitted Work; separate F.6 relation when precise assignment-bound attribution is current; separate assertion or description episteme when current | KernelToken or ContextToken according to the recovered value and use | A title, source or scheme cue, capability, evidence item, declaration place, assignment, or actor-like label establishes none of systemhood, classification, agency, profile, Work, or attribution. |
| L‑OWNER | owner of X | Recover what ownership wording says in this claim. Keep owner when an actual architectural, organizational, policy, source-maintenance, responsibility, authority, or commitment relation is current. If the claim is instead a work-facing system classification or assignment, start with E.10.ROLE and use A.2 or A.2.1. | Exact ownership or responsibility relation, exact local system-role kind, exact direct assignment species, ordinary wording, or blocker | ContextToken only when an admitted local-use designation is actually current | No global owner property; no lexical replacement of a precise architectural owner; no assignment inferred from a title. |
| L-CAP | capability for assignment, recipe, run, or promise | A.2.2 states a holder’s ability within declared conditions and bounds. Keep an exact system-role kind, direct U.SystemRoleAssignment species, U.Method, dated U.Work, Work record, and U.PromiseContent separate under their patterns. | EntityOfConcern is the holder System for an ability claim; method, system-role kind, assignment and Work occurrence retain their own identities; one-method Description episteme only after membership; separate run-record episteme | KernelToken or ContextToken according to the recovered value and use | A system-role kind or assignment establishes no capability; a recipe form or record establishes neither MethodDescription membership nor Work. |
| L-DYN | process of diffusion, growth, or learning | Recover the claim first. Use U.Dynamics only when one episteme passes A.3.3: its exact EntityOfConcern is the changing subject and its claims state the state space and transition law. Use A.3.4.P for an unresolved change situation or E.10.LRN for unresolved learning wording. | Dynamics episteme separate from its changing EntityOfConcern, Method and Work | KernelToken or ContextToken according to the recovered value and use | The law may include exogenous inputs, constraints and disturbances; Dynamics is not restricted to uncaused change. |
| L‑EVID | “paper or dataset proves or ensures” | Recover the evidence-use, source-use, status-use, assurance-use, gate-use, or publication-use relation under B.3, F.10, G.6, E.17, C.28, or the rule that defines the recovered use relation. Use A.10 to recover the exact sources, independently established relations, currentness and bounded reliance. Use U.SystemRoleAssignment only for a separate exact assignment that currently obtains, whose holder is an admitted system and whose assigned participant is one exact local system-role kind. | Episteme with exact claim target and direct use relation; any system-role assignment remains separate | ContextToken or DiscriminatorToken according to the recovered value and use | Evidence use is a relation over an episteme and a claim or use; the episteme is not a system-role holder. |
| L‑CTX | context wording whose action-changing content is hidden | Apply E.10.D1; recover the subject-defined value or relation that changes the action—for example, a scheme, scope, model-use boundary, situation, design-time or run-time referent, architecture, environment, domain subject, or local-practice use. | Apply the pattern for the recovered subject and name its EntityOfConcern and any claim-bearing episteme; introduce no generic Context participant or card. | Keep the recovered subject’s token class; the spelling context selects none. | Keep quoted and ordinary uses, and established uses already defined by a pattern. Rewrite only the use that hides the next action or stop. |
| L-BRIDGE | sameness, equivalence, alignment, or mapping inferred from a shared label | Identify the two exact local senses first. If the F.9 predicate is being asserted, address each sense as an exact F.17 SchemeSenseCell and apply F.9 only when the direct Bridge relation actually obtains; state any bounded use and any A.10 or B.3 reliance separately. | The Bridge relates the two exact cells. A card, row, label, score, or publication is a separate episteme or representation and makes no relation obtain. | Keep each source expression under its effective scheme. | A shared label creates neither a Bridge nor substitution, merge, admission, authorization, or performed use. |
Red and Green pattern (example). ✗ “The process ensures quality.” → ✓ “
M_quality : U.Methodnames the recovered way of doing.D_qualityisU.MethodDescriptiononly because it is a separately identified claim-bearing episteme whose EntityOfConcern isM_qualityand whose claims state the method’s steps and applicability. Evaluate dated Work against the applicable acceptance condition, constraint, or commitment.”