E.11.PUA:4.4 - Candidate basis under named reliance

Construct a durable candidate only after inspecting the direct pattern’s Problem frame, Problem, Forces, Solution, Consequences and ordinary boundary. When a named reliance needs its basis addressable, state one ordinary C.2.1 claim whose EntityOfConcern is that exact CandidatePatternUse episteme. Say which direct Solution content and case facts support using the pattern for this practical question and expected result, with their applicability and unresolved or contradicted premises. Ordinary conversational use need not materialize this account.

An optional representation of the basis claim is:

Candidate basis claim:  // ordinary C.2.1 episteme; local description, no new U-kind
  entityOfConcernRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing the exact CandidatePatternUse@Context
  claimGraph: U.ClaimGraph by value
  referenceSchemeRef: U.ReferenceSchemeRef
  directPatternRef: U.EpistemeRef
  directSolutionContentRef: exact content supporting this candidate
  supportingClaimRefs[]?: U.EpistemeRef
  supportingRelationRefs[]?: references to independently obtaining direct relations
  supportingEvidenceUseRefs[]?: exact evidence-use references under their own rules

The claim states how each cited object supports the candidate’s question and expectation. It keeps each object’s kind and the asserted use recoverable; a generic “additional basis” wrapper supplies neither. A README template can supply a reusable starting point, while case facts come from the actual subject, practical question, effective scheme and action-changing working conditions.

Reference respelling that still designates the same source changes no source referent. Added evidence can change support without changing that source. A richer display may preserve the episteme, whereas changed claim content, EntityOfConcern or effective ReferenceScheme is assessed under C.2.1 and can identify a different candidate or basis episteme. A direct basis relation remains a separate option only when a receiver needs its occurrence and its participants, predicate and identity are independently settled under A.6.REL.

CandidatePatternUse@Context <: U.Episteme:
  entityOfConcernRef: U.EntityRef
  entityOfConcernKindRef: U.KindRef
  claimGraph: U.ClaimGraph by value
  referenceSchemeRef: U.ReferenceSchemeRef
  claimScopeRef?: U.EntityRef, referencing one U.ClaimScope
  modelUseStructureRef?: U.EntityRef, referencing one BoundedModelUseStructure
  projectWorkRef?: U.EntityRef, referencing one composite U.Work
  editionId
  practicalUseQuestionRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one PracticalUseQuestion@Context
  problemCardRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one C.22.2 ProblemCard episteme
  publicTemplateRef?: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one PublicCandidatePatternUseTemplate@FPFReadme
  directPatternRef: U.EntityRef, referencing one exact FPF pattern episteme
  directSolutionSectionRef: U.EntityRef, referencing the E.17 PublicationUnit containing the direct pattern's Solution
  resultExpectationRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one PatternUseResultExpectation@Context
  candidateAdmissionBoundaryRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one PatternUseBoundaryCondition@Context
  returnBoundaryRef: U.EpistemeRef, referencing one PatternUseBoundaryCondition@Context

The public template is absent when the candidate was formed by direct pattern inspection without a README template. directSolutionSectionRef is the Solution section of directPatternRef; no redundant solution-MethodDescription ref is retained. A project-tailored MethodDescription is a separate U.MethodDescription under A.3.2. If dated Work first constitutes that episteme and the inception claim matters, state the exact A.15.PROD assertion; any derivation or reuse relation to the direct pattern episteme remains separate. Applicability, recommendation, and coordination remain exact E.11.PUR assertions.