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.