E.17.EFP:4 - Solution — review profile for explanation renderings on existing MVPK faces

E.17.EFP:4.1 - Informal definition

ExplanationFaithfulnessProfile is a review profile for the explanation use of publication forms or representations of exact claim-bearing epistemes on existing MVPK faces. E.17 supplies face discipline; E.17.0 supplies viewpoint/view conformance only when U.View membership is material.

It does not create a new face family, episteme, or source relation. C.2.1 first identifies the exact episteme expressed by the text; E.24.PUB or A.6.3.RT identifies its form or representation; and, when the ClaimGraph changes, the applicable source-to-target pattern defines the relation and its obtaining test. EFP then states the bounded explanation use of that already identified object.

E.17.EFP:4.1.a - Profile, episteme, and published-form distinction

ExplanationFaithfulnessProfile is a review profile. Its cases concern passive publication forms or representations of an exact U.Episteme.

The distinction is executable: identify the episteme through its claim content, exact concern and effective scheme; test the form’s sufficiency for the declared use; then classify that explanation use. Partial expression can preserve the source identity. Missing needed content blocks that use, while an actual changed target needs a C.2.1 identity and an independently obtaining source-to-target relation. An EFP class supplies none of these prerequisites.

E.17.EFP:4.1.b - How to read this profile

This profile does not decide whether a claim is true or which claim-bearing object exists. It starts after C.2.1 identity and any required source-to-target relation are recoverable, then qualifies the explanation use of one publication form or representation.

• Faithfulness names the review question for that explanation use, not a pass verdict or an episteme-identity rule.
• Class names are bounded-use labels for a form or representation, not merit labels and not source-to-target relations.
• Use E.17 for face discipline and E.24.PUB for publication occurrence and form.
• A changed assertion, concern or effective scheme reopens episteme identity even when the prose remains explanatory, didactic, reconstructive or speculative. Selecting only enough source content for a bounded use does not itself assert a changed ClaimGraph.
• A causal or counterfactual addition requires a separate hypothesis episteme under B.5.2 before any publication form can receive an EFP use label.

E.17.EFP:4.1.c - Local working vocabulary

This profile uses a small local vocabulary for review.

• Source episteme and publication occurrence = the exact source U.Episteme edition and, when material, the exact E.24.PUB EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence through which it is available. Neither is an MVPK face, form, carrier, or arbitrary physical item.
• Current claim-bearing episteme = the exact source or target edition identified by ClaimGraph, EntityOfConcern and effective ReferenceScheme. The published form may express a sufficient part of that edition for the declared use. A target’s claimed source-to-target relation must obtain under its direct pattern.
• Published explanation form = one publication form or representation of that current claim-bearing episteme on one existing face.
• Class assignment = the explanation-use class assigned to that published form on that face.
• Bundle-local class difference = a case where two forms in one bundle carry different bounded explanation uses.

These are review aids, not new kinds or relation types. EFP neither creates the current episteme nor substitutes for C.2.1, E.24.PUB, A.6.3, B.5.2, or another direct source-to-target pattern.

E.17.EFP:4.2 - Core profile fields

The ontic first screen is performed once, not copied into a metadata record for every note. Most published forms whose identity branch is already recoverable need only the compact explanation-use note:

The fuller field vocabulary below opens only when ambiguity or load-bearing use is present: different classes across faces, source linkage dispute, connective reconstruction, reader-fit dispute, interaction or statefulness, derivative rendering, cross-context reuse, cited reliance, work or reliance, evidence, gate, engineering justification, bridge, or coarsening boundary.

• faceRuleRef = E.17 and viewpointConformanceRuleRef = E.17.0;
• sourcePublicationOrRecordForm;
• targetPublicationOrRecordForm;
• changeTargetRef;
• entityOfConcernPolicy = preserve for explanation renderings over the same underlying source U.Episteme edition;
• boundedContextPolicy;
• viewpointPolicy;
• referenceSchemePolicy;
• representationSchemePolicy;
• groundingPolicy;
• referencePlanePolicy;
• claimPolicy;
• claimScopePolicy;
• publicationScopePolicy;
• reliabilityTransportPolicy;
• pinningPolicy;
• provenancePolicy;
• lossProfile;
• claimContinuityClass;
• microtheoryContinuityClass;
• onticContinuityClass;
• bridgeRequirement;
• worldContactPolicy;
• evidencePolicy;
• gatePolicy;
• workCrossing;
• sourceRelationRuleRef?, upstreamAuthoritySourceRef?, downstreamUseRuleRef?, and downstreamAuthoritySourceRef?;
• boundedFaces;
• publication-face kind value when publication face/form or interop publication form discipline is present;
• publicNamePolicy;
• explanationSourceRelationClass using the shared E.17:5.1b vocabulary when source pointer, source availability or retrieval, source use, source faithfulness, claim-source relation, contradiction, omission, claim widening, added linkage, independent verification, bounded use, forbidden downstream use, or reopen trigger could diverge;
• no generic source-relation field; source relation is recorded through explanationSourceRelationClass;
• augmentationRelation;
• addedLinkPolicy when a non-obvious SourceLinkedExplanationReconstruction connective points to an actual derivation from the source claims or to an exact relation occurrence that those source claims already report and whose obtaining is independently established;
• targetUserModel? when reader-fit materially shapes the rendering;
• interactionMode? when the explanation is more than one static explanatory paragraph;
• contrastiveQuestion? when the rendering is answering a specific user-facing contrast or why-question;
• boundedReaderUse? when downstream use is bounded by intended reader and task;
• overreadRisk? when overinterpretation pressure is part of the review load;
• evidenceRelation? only when a named operative claim or receiving reliance actually consumes an A.10 evidence/provenance path;
• noNewBoundaryClaims = true on explanation faces;
• compositionRule;
• reopenCondition.

These fields inherit the E.17:5.1e local-field rule. They classify one explanation-facing rendering for review; they do not create U.Kind, publication-face kind, RelationKind, KindBridge, EvidenceKind, GateDecision, SpeechAct, Commitment, U.Work, authority reference, publication face, or project-side FPF kind and reference named by value unless another FPF pattern explicitly defines or instantiates that object. The explanationClass value is a local source-relation and bounded-use profile value, not ExplanationKind, not U.Kind, not EvidenceKind, not FaceKind, and not a truth certificate.

When claim content changes, pause EFP until the practitioner uses C.2.1 to identify the target episteme and the applicable source-to-target pattern to identify and test the relation. EFP may then qualify a publication form of that target only when explanation use remains a distinct question; it never substitutes for that relation or its obtaining test.

E.17.EFP:4.2.a - Working-model first

Ordinary published forms do not restate every field or replay the ontic decision. When their exact claim-bearing episteme, MVPK face, any material E.24.PUB occurrence, and already published source references make the branch recoverable, the compact note inherits those conditions by reference.

A source-bearing review record becomes necessary when:

• explanation class differs across faces in the same publication bundle;
• the rendering relies on bounded connective prose that is not obvious from the source wording alone;
• didactic or speculative wording creates a real risk of policy, assurance, or gate misuse;
• source linkage, provenance, or reliability transport would otherwise become unclear;
• the rendering is a fork, adaptation, translation, generated explanation, tutorial, access-format conversion, or another derivative publication that can be mistaken for the source publication, source relation, or source episteme itself.

When one rendering needs its own narrower bounded claim or effect line, blocked downstream claim or effect line, or source-bearing reopen rule because distinctions were deliberately coarsened for reader fit, the issue is no longer only explanation class. Do not keep that case here as if it were merely one more helpful rendering style; apply A.6.3.CSC Controlled Semantic Coarsening.

E.17.EFP:4.2.b - What a publication-side reviewer checks first

A publication-side reviewer starts with five questions:

1. Which exact source edition is intended: what ClaimGraph, EntityOfConcern and effective ReferenceScheme identify it?
2. Does the text express enough for the declared use, retaining action-changing qualifications, source return and use-relevant omission disclosure? Whole-source coverage is not required; an omitted answer-changing condition blocks this use even if the displayed sentences are true.
3. Does the text assert changed content or concern another entity or effective scheme? If so, which exact target and independently obtaining source-to-target relation support its form?
4. Which E.24.PUB form or applicable A.6.3.RT representation expresses the identified episteme, and which explanation class changes the reader’s next action?
5. Has the form begun carrying another unsupported claim, relation, reliance or deliberately coarsened use that must return to its direct pattern?

If a prerequisite is missing, return the exact source-identity, source-sufficiency, target-identity or relation gap. Do not manufacture a target from an omission or repair a gap with a class. Once these prerequisites and the action-changing class distinction are recoverable, the compact note is complete. Open a fuller face-by-face record only when a section 4.2 trigger consumes additional fields.

E.17.EFP:4.2.c - Interpretant-side block

This profile classifies explanation use on existing faces; it does not describe full interactive explanation systems.

When reader fit materially changes the explanation class, bounded use, blocked use, or reopen condition, make only the distinction needed for that change. A familiar audience and static note may need no separate reader-model field. A contrastive or interactive case may need one or more of targetUserModel, interactionMode, contrastiveQuestion, boundedReaderUse, or overreadRisk.

These names are optional prompts, not a five-field publication block. They only expose the reader-fit difference that changes the present use.

When the bounded use depends on how much selected structure the reader can recover, use C.2.8 with the relevant preparation, access and budget. Compare recovered structure separately from explanation faithfulness. Keep the exact episteme identified by the first screen: a content change requires its own target, even if the revised explanation is easier to use. The ordinary source-linked note remains sufficient whenever it meets EFP’s non-use condition.

E.17.EFP:4.3 - Explanation class set

The explanation-class set used in this profile is:

• SourcePinnedExplanation
• SourceLinkedExplanationReconstruction
• DidacticRetelling
• SpeculativeRetelling

In field form, the local assignment is explanationClass = SourcePinnedExplanation | SourceLinkedExplanationReconstruction | DidacticRetelling | SpeculativeRetelling.

Class assignment follows, and never replaces, the ontic first screen.

• SourcePinnedExplanation qualifies a form or representation that expresses enough of the exact source edition for the declared use, with action-changing qualifications, source return and use-relevant omissions recoverable. It claims no whole-source coverage.
• SourceLinkedExplanationReconstruction qualifies a non-obvious connective only when it remains in the same source ClaimGraph because a stated derivation from exact source claims recovers it, or because the source ClaimGraph already reports an exact relation occurrence whose obtaining is independently established under its defining pattern. An independently true relation that the source does not claim belongs to another target ClaimGraph.
• DidacticRetelling qualifies teaching or onboarding use of a sufficient source form, including a partial expression, or of an exact target connected under A.6.3.CR, A.6.3.CSC or another applicable pattern when pedagogy changes claims, concern or effective scheme.
• SpeculativeRetelling qualifies only the bounded exploratory use of a form of a separately constituted hypothesis episteme, normally produced under B.5.2. It is not a speculative form of the original source ClaimGraph.

These values are not U.Kind values, MVPK faces, semantic merit grades, source-to-target relations, or episteme identities. They state how the published form may be used after those objects and relations have been recovered.

Class assignment is per published form on a face, not one blanket label for a whole multi-face bundle. If a PlainView form stays source-pinned while a TechCard form expresses a separately related target episteme, the bundle names both exact epistemes and the class difference.

E.17.EFP:4.3.a - Ordinary class-selection guidance

A practical order is:

1. identify the source’s ClaimGraph, exact concern and effective scheme;
2. test sufficiency of the text for the declared use, including qualifications and omissions;
3. identify any actual changed target and independently obtaining source-to-target relation;
4. identify the form or representation and assign an EFP class only if that explanation-use distinction changes the reader’s next action.

Use SourcePinnedExplanation for sufficient source expression; SourceLinkedExplanationReconstruction for an already justified connective explanation; DidacticRetelling for bounded teaching use of the identified source or target; and SpeculativeRetelling only for a separately constituted hypothesis episteme. A missing prerequisite returns its exact gap. Any narrower reader-help use must itself satisfy the source-expression test.

Do not keep one narrower-use target with declared source-loss mode inside explanation merely because the prose is reader-friendly. When its narrower bounded claim or effect, blocked downstream use, and source-bearing return are primary, use A.6.3.CSC Controlled Semantic Coarsening; EFP may qualify a later publication form only if explanation use remains a separate live question.

E.17.EFP:4.3.b - Entailed connective and addedLinkPolicy

Harmless connective wording adds no proposition: conjunction markers, pronoun recovery, and sentence order can simply make an already explicit source statement readable. No addedLinkPolicy is needed for that case.

SourceLinkedExplanationReconstruction applies to a less obvious connective only when one of two bases is recoverable:

1. the exact source claims plus their effective reference scheme make the connective a consequence under a stated derivation; or
2. the exact source claims already report the relation occurrence, and that occurrence independently obtains under its defining pattern.

When that basis is material but not visible in the prose, a compact addedLinkPolicy points to it:

• addedLinkKind — the connective being exposed;
• sourceReferenceSet — the exact source claims used;
• effectiveSchemeOrRuleRefs — the designation, interpretation, ordering, or inference rules used by the derivation;
• derivationOrRelationRef — the inspectable derivation or the exact relation occurrence already reported by the source claims and independently shown to obtain;
• claimContentResult = source-recoverable — confirmation that the connective introduces no unsupported target claim;
• reopenTrigger — a source, scheme, rule, context, or relation change that invalidates the basis.

The policy is an index to the basis, not evidence that the basis exists. boundednessReason, a forbidden-link note, or author intent may help delimit use, but none substitutes for derivationOrRelationRef.

If neither a derivation from the exact source claims nor an exact source-reported relation occurrence that independently obtains can be recovered, the connective is another claim. Constitute its exact target episteme under C.2.1 and apply the direct relation, bridge, comparison, or B.5.2 hypothesis pattern that fits the new claim. If that result is unavailable, remove the connective or leave EFP; a downgrade label cannot make it source-linked.

E.17.EFP:4.4 - Working bounded-use matrix

This matrix assigns no evidence relation. An ordinary EFP result needs no A.10 path. Exact evidence, trace, pin, or provenance details open only when a named claim, dispute, derivative transformation, or receiving reliance consumes them and its applicable pattern or project record requires them.

ExplanationFaithfulnessProfile ordinarily stays on publication face/form. Any appearance on interop publication form remains source-pinned and structure-preserving, and does not smuggle explanation-specific semantics into interop publication. Didactic or speculative restrictions are use-profile restrictions over existing faces, not new face kinds.

Source-pinned explanation on AssuranceLane-facing publication is exceptional rather than ordinary. Unless the exact face or source policy permits that use with visible evidence carriers, source pins, and no added semantics, reviewers treat AssuranceLane-facing explanation rendering as blocked.

DidacticRetelling may carry analogy, scaffolding, or reader orientation without asserting a domain fact. Every domain claim it does express belongs either to the exact source ClaimGraph or to an identified target episteme with an obtaining source-to-target relation. Marking prose non-canonical or trace-free does not erase claim content, create its episteme, or establish that relation. When such analogy or scaffolding sits beside technical content, box or otherwise visibly separate it so readers do not merge it into the technical source; that cue limits likely use but does not establish episteme identity or a source relation.

The compact ordinary result needs only a source locator sufficient to reopen the exact source or target decision. Publish exact claim IDs, pins, trace paths, provenance details, or an A.10 evidence relation only when a named claim, dispute, derivative transformation, or receiving reliance consumes them. A reopenable locator is not automatically an evidence path.

When a reader-fit difference changes the bounded or blocked use, state only the relevant audience, interaction, question, use, or overread distinction. Do not publish or inherit all five reader-model fields for ordinary reader help.

E.17.EFP:4.5 - Shared explanation rule set

E.17.EFP:4.5.a. - Preservation rule

Every published explanation form under this profile expresses enough of one exact episteme edition for the declared use. Source identity rests on ClaimGraph, exact EntityOfConcern and effective ReferenceScheme; sufficiency rests on retained action-changing qualifications, source return and disclosure of use-relevant omissions. A partial expression may satisfy both. Insufficiency does not constitute a target; actual changed content, concern or effective scheme requires its own identity decision and any claimed source-to-target relation. E.24.PUB publication occurrence remains separate, and the EFP class changes neither identity nor relation.

E.17.EFP:4.5.b. - Loss and reliability rule

A published form states material omission, reordering, simplification or connection. An omission that removes information required by the declared use blocks that use even when the remaining text is true. When the form instead asserts changed content, identify its exact target and establish the claimed source-to-target relation under A.6.3 or another applicable pattern. An EFP label supplies neither missing content nor that relation. Reliability is never silently widened by more persuasive prose.

When a concrete reader-fit difference is load-bearing, expose only enough of its bounded use or overread risk to prevent the actual didactic or contrastive form from being mistaken for assurance, policy, or gate guidance.

E.17.EFP:4.5.c. - Downstream-use and boundary rule

This profile stays explanation-facing and episteme-facing. It does not decide bridge stance, retargeting, action selection, executable docking, gate-bearing claims or effects, assurance, engineering justification, or work enactment. If a case starts carrying one bounded comparative review case, rival interpretations, bridge-mediated comparison load, world consequences, work or reliance consequences, gate consequences, assurance, or engineering justification, apply the neighboring FPF pattern, then name the project-side object or record that carries the claim or effect and its FPF kind. Relevant patterns include E.17.ID.CR, F.9 for an obtaining Bridge and its bounded-use claim, F.9.1 for an optional stance note, B.5.2, A.6.4, A.15, A.15.1, A.15.4 only while an appearance hides the needed work or reliance prerequisite, B.3, A.20, and A.21.

Interpretant-side fields do not weaken that boundary rule. They only bound reader use; they do not authorize unsupported downstream guidance.

If a coarsened explanation-like rendering needs a narrower bounded claim or effect, blocked downstream use, and source-bearing reopen to remain honest, apply A.6.3.CSC Controlled Semantic Coarsening rather than keeping the case in ordinary explanation-use discipline.

E.17.EFP:4.5.d. - Composition and reopen rule

Repeated SourcePinnedExplanation over forms of the same exact source edition can be idempotent for the same bounded use. A changed selection of content reopens sufficiency for that use; changed assertions, concern or effective scheme reopen C.2.1 identity and any source-to-target relation. Didactic target forms reopen when their target edition, relation or use changes; speculative forms reopen when their B.5.2 hypothesis edition, prompt relation or exploratory use changes.

E.17.EFP:4.6 - Hard boundary rules

A rendering reviewed under this profile keeps the following explicit:

• it does not create a second face family;
• it does not turn faces into a second semantic rule track;
• it does not license new A.6.B boundary claims on explanation faces: law claims, use-boundary claims, deontic or commitment claims, and effect or evidence claims;
• it does not replace bridge discipline, retargeting discipline, or world or gate boundary discipline;
• it does not let publication face/form and interop publication form collapse into one undifferentiated explanation channel.

If explanation text carries a changed ClaimGraph, stop class review, identify the exact target episteme and establish that the direct source-to-target relation obtains. Resume EFP only for a publication form of that target when bounded explanation use remains separately material.