E.11.PUA:5 - Archetypal Grounding
E.11.PUA:5.1 - Episteme result: a usable problem card
A team has a vague recurring pump-failure concern and asks whether it can be articulated well enough to guide later method selection. In cheap ordinary use it can say, “Use C.22.2 to make a usable problem card,” then state the bounded concern, affected entity, obstacle, stakes, evidence state, and honest next use. Those contents can leave the exact C.22.2 ProblemCard episteme and selectedPatternApplicationFlowResult position recoverable without stating or recording either one. Name them explicitly only when a nearby kind confusion or named reliance requires replay; C.22.2 and C.2.1 still govern the episteme.
If the card did not exist before this exercise and the team claims that the drafting episode first constituted it, identify the dated drafting U.Work, the card’s C.2.1 identity rule, the actual changes, and the local A.15.PROD entity-identity-inception claim. That claim establishes the card’s Work-attributed inception, not by itself that the card is this PUA use’s result. A reliance-bearing closure separately names the category-correct basis that makes the card the result relative to the current pattern use or another named relative object. Without the inception basis, do not say that pattern application produced the card; state only the card content and leave its inception provenance open. Any later P2W participation uses its exact direct relation or local claim. The team need not materialize PUA closure records during a cheap conversational use.
E.11.PUA:5.1a - Evaluation specification without a ProblemCard
An architecture team already has a bounded comparison question and needs no accepted C.22.2 ProblemCard episteme. It applies A.19.ECS and states one exact EvaluationCharacteristicSpaceSpec with declared coordinates, scales, comparators, and evidence rules; A.19.ECS and C.2.1 govern that specification episteme. The optional problemCardRef remains absent.
The application-flow label is only a readable PUA position. If the team claims that exact planning or specification Work first constituted the episteme, cite its local A.15.PROD inception claim for that subject fact. A reliance-bearing PUA closure separately identifies the category-correct basis that makes the specification a result relative to the current pattern use or another named relative object. If a later comparison actually uses the specification, cite the exact direct relation, A.6.1 binding, or local relation-bearing claim defined or constrained by that comparison pattern. Without the corresponding basis, keep the specification, its PUA closure, and the later comparison separate.
E.11.PUA:5.1b - A selection result can support later planning
E.11.PUR governs the identity and content of one PatternUseRecommendation@Context; A.15.2 separately governs one U.WorkPlan. patternSelectionFlowResult and selectedPatternApplicationFlowResult are descriptive positions that keep these two entities apart. If either episteme is claimed to have been first constituted by dated Work, cite its own local A.15.PROD inception claim rather than saying that selection or application generically produced it.
If the recommendation participates in later planning, name its exact source and receiving positions and either the direct relation occurrence with its applicable predicate or the applicable A.6.1 binding. If that basis cannot be established, keep the recommendation and plan separate and state the exact missing-governor, unresolved-grounding, false-predicate, or missing-endpoint-binding boundary. Neither the recommendation nor the plan becomes the machined component expected from downstream subject work.
Build-the-builder recognition case. An executable compiler edition occupies one exact result-bearing position (FlowPositionRef) in a compiler-build TFS and participates at one exact compiler-use position (FlowPositionRef) in a separately identified program-compilation TFS through a direct compiler-use relation occurrence. Its applicable predicate identifies that occurrence; the compiler edition keeps its kind. Use E.18 when either TFS-local position is unresolved; use E.18.NET when the question is how the separately identified build and compilation TFS values form a network, including a recursive one. With no compiler-use kind or predicate, return missing-governor; with undecided case facts, keep the relation open; with a false predicate, assert no compiler-use occurrence; with an obtaining occurrence but a missing endpoint binding, return missing-endpoint-binding and name that binding. None of these branches permits calling the compiler edition the second flow’s input by label alone.
E.11.PUA:5.1c - AI-assisted ordinary use returns the subject result
An engineer asks an AI assistant to apply an already selected A.19.ECS pattern to a pump-comparison question. The needed result is one exact EvaluationCharacteristicSpaceSpec with admitted coordinates, scales, comparators, and evidence rules. No later use asks for a durable pattern-selection trace.
The assistant returns the specification content in ordinary language and keeps the concern, pattern, and stop condition recoverable in the conversation. The text is the required specification only when it satisfies the A.19.ECS and C.2.1 identity rules. Successful ordinary use creates no candidate, fit, applicability, rationale, expectation, or closure record merely because AI helped. If the use also claims first constitution, recover every precise performer’s A.13 core and let A.15.1 independently admit the dated Work; add F.6 afterward only when the closure also consumes exact assignment-bound attribution through the same obtaining assignment, then state the A.15.PROD inception claim. A short attribution projection may omit only an assignment identifier unused by its receiving claim; every fact consumed by the A.13/A.15.1/F.6 basis remains recoverable. A Work-only account stops after A.13 and A.15.1. Work is not a responsibility bearer. If the available basis cannot support the specification, name the unresolved coordinate, scale, comparator, or evidence-rule position, use A.19.ECS to resolve it, and leave the completed-specification expectation open. Materialize that return as PatternUseBoundaryCondition@Context only when a named reliance needs an addressable boundary; do not emit a complete meta-record stack.
E.11.PUA:5.2 - Physical result: work is still future
A machining team applies a planning pattern for a dimensionally accepted component and states one exact U.WorkPlan under A.15.2. If it claims that planning Work first constituted that plan episteme, cite the local A.15.PROD inception claim. The metal blank remains unchanged.
The plan is the result at the selectedPatternApplicationFlowResult position and keeps its A.15.2 identity. The component remains an open downstreamSubjectWorkFlowResult expectation until dated machining Work occurs. The team may continue with the A.15 work patterns; it cannot fill the component position with the plan, simulation, inspection checklist, or generated prose.
After machining Work occurs, identify the A.3.4 transformation and the applicable work-to-change predicate or admitted local claim. If the Work first makes a new component satisfy its identity rule, cite the separate A.15.PROD inception claim; if a completion criterion is satisfied, cite the separate completion claim. Evaluation, dimensional evidence, and acceptance remain separate. A reliance-bearing PUA closure must additionally name the category-correct basis that makes the component or changed state the result relative to the machining Work or another named relative object; neither the flow position nor result wording supplies it.
E.11.PUA:5.3 - Clinical result: a state and its note stay separate
A clinician uses a direct decision pattern to state one treatment-plan episteme. The decision pattern and C.2.1 govern the plan; a claim that dated decision Work first constituted it requires its local A.15.PROD inception basis. The plan may describe an intended receiving use, but it does not establish that treatment occurred or that the patient’s state changed.
After treatment Work occurs, identify the clinical change through A.3.4 and the applicable treatment-work-to-change predicate or admitted local claim. The clinical state and the case-note episteme can both be current, but they keep different identities and relations. The note may support grounding and later reliance; it does not become the patient’s state.
If the clinically relevant state existed before the current pattern use, return a PreExistingResultGroundingFinding@Context whose claim graph cites the exact examination, measurement, diagnostic, or evidence-use relation that grounds it for the present question. The examination does not produce that state or supply an unknown earlier treatment history. Missing direct grounding returns its exact blocker.
E.11.PUA:5.3a - Learned capability and assessment remain separate
For a precise teaching-performer claim, first recover every performer’s A.13 core and let A.15.1 independently admit the dated teaching Work; add F.6 only when exact assignment-bound attribution through the same obtaining assignment is current. Use the applicable educational pattern for the educational claim. A later assessment episteme may support a claim that the learner demonstrated a bounded capability or skill only when an applicable educational, assessment, evidence-use, or subject predicate establishes that claim. The capability and the assessment episteme remain distinct. A completed lesson, assessment plan, or filled record cannot occupy the learned-capability position by itself; if no applicable capability predicate is available, return missing-governor rather than a generic learning result.
E.11.PUA:5.4 - Pre-existing result: inspection does not reproduce it
A maintenance engineer inspects an installed pump that predates the current pattern use. Current measurements may ground the pump for a compatibility question only through the exact measurement, observation, diagnostic, or evidence-use relations defined by the applicable patterns; the historical production claim lies outside the basis.
Use PreExistingResultGroundingFinding@Context for the present grounding and cite its exact GroundingBasisPair values. An inspection note or record may describe the pump and support evidence use, but it cannot replace the physical pump or occupy the expected subject-result position. Keep producing-work provenance absent. The current inspection neither manufactures the pump nor proves how it was manufactured. If the direct grounding relation cannot be recovered, return that blocker instead of treating inspection proximity as grounding.
E.11.PUA:5.5 - Repair a plan-as-component closure locally
A machining rehearsal selected the correct planning pattern and stated a valid U.WorkPlan, but its closure named the plan as a downstreamSubjectWorkFlowResult and treated the component expectation as satisfied. The concern, candidate basis, direct pattern, and WorkPlan remain sound.
Repair the expectation and closure finding: place the U.WorkPlan in the descriptive selectedPatternApplicationFlowResult position, cite its exact A.15.2 identity and any current A.15.PROD inception claim for Work-attributed first constitution, and separately cite the category-correct basis that makes this plan the result relative to the current pattern use. Remove the unsupported component closure and any realized receiving-use finding that depended on it, and keep the component as an open downstream expectation. The next current use enters the A.15 work family. No new candidate selection or reconstruction of the WorkPlan is needed.
E.11.PUA:5.6 - Complete trace, absent result
An automated report raises pattern-use trace completeness to 100 percent by filling every candidate, rationale, expectation, and boundary position. Operators begin treating the green report as completion, while the direct basis for the claimed result and the intended receiving use remain absent more often.
The trace measure improved while subject progress worsened. Keep completeness as a trace-quality measure, apply E.13 to the substitution, and judge PUA success by the useful result or honest interim entity, the direct pattern and basis needed to make that claim true, and any separately current later-use disposition. Empty result-basis positions are not repaired by adding more support records.