E.17.0:5 - Worked cases

E.17.0:5.1 - Directly authored architecture view

Architecture episteme E concerns exact system T. Maintainability viewpoint episteme P concerns its selected viewpoint-convention structure and states the target-kind, concern, admitted-kind, coverage, and semantic-form rules. E satisfies those fixed rules, so EpistemeViewpointConformanceRelation(E,P) obtains and the same E is a U.View. No source episteme or A.6.3 viewing is required.

E.17.0:5.2 - Query output that is not yet a view

A query over source episteme X constructs episteme Y, and A.6.3 records the source-to-Y viewing relation. Y omits a concern component that exact viewpoint P requires. The construction relation obtains, but conformance does not; Y is not a U.View under P. A later repair may create Y2 with different claim content and a new C.2.1 identity.

E.17.0:5.3 - One episteme, two viewpoints, one selected use

Unchanged episteme E conforms to safety viewpoint P1 and maintenance viewpoint P2. Two participant-determined conformance occurrences obtain, while the named current review use selects only P1 through one singular viewpointRef. E remains one U.View; the selection neither creates the P1 conformance nor removes the P2 conformance.

E.17.0:5.4 - Viewpoint revision and library repackaging

Adding a reference to unchanged viewpoint episteme P to another E.17.1 local family declaration, or carrying it in another catalogue edition, changes only the catalogue declaration and provenance; it does not change P. Revising P’s conformance rules creates another episteme P_new; conformance of E to P_old does not imply conformance to P_new. An EpistemeEditionRelation may relate the P editions, but it is not a conformance occurrence.

E.17.0:5.5 - Two publications of one view

View episteme E conforms to P. A web page and a printed sheet use exact forms F1 and F2 borne by exact carriers K1 and K2. Separate expression and bearing relations obtain, and two five-participant publication occurrences make the same E edition available under their own audience, bounded-use, and maximal availability intervals. E remains one view episteme; none of the forms, carriers, supporting relations, or occurrences becomes E or P.

E.17.0:5.6 - Cross-view correspondence

A functional view names transformation F and a structural view names module M. A project claim says M realizes F. The shared system EntityOfConcern and aligned diagram positions do not establish realization. Recover exact F and M, apply the direct realization-relation pattern, then identify an assertion episteme about that occurrence if review needs it. A traceability matrix may represent the assertion and occurrence under C.29; its cell is not the realization relation.

E.17.0:5.7 - Procedural view is not a method description

A TEVB procedural view E concerns exact holon H and carries claims about methods, order, state, concurrency, and recovery through their exact relations to H. E may conform to procedural viewpoint P and therefore be a U.View, but it is not a U.MethodDescription because its exact EntityOfConcern is H rather than one admitted method. A true method-description view retargets to the method and uses a viewpoint whose target-kind criterion admits methods.