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.