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.