E.24.CD:10 - Rationale

Ontic candidates rarely arrive as pure ontology. They appear through the forms people use: project tables, cards, schemas, diagrams, source packets, draft rows, examples, and repeated words. Those forms reveal working concerns, but they do not decide what exists, what relation obtains, or what FPF kind is needed.

The pattern therefore asks for one first-use disposition instead of a candidate record. Keep direct claims in their direct patterns; use C.2.1 only when one exact ClaimGraph, one truthful EntityOfConcern, and one effective ReferenceScheme constitute an episteme; and use C.3.2 for local classification. Keep publication in E.24.PUB and representation in C.29. Use C.2.P.DR to block action inferred from declarative form; resolve ambiguous wording through A.6.RSIR, A.6.F, A.6.P, or E.10; and name only an already governed value through F.18. Open E.24 only when named dependent patterns need one stable subject identity and minimal relation set that those simpler applications cannot preserve.

This order keeps the first move affordable and falsifiable. Another author can see which fact selected the applicable pattern or unresolved stop and what to do next. A list of candidate fields or scores would make the form look authoritative and invite optimization of the record instead of settlement of the subject.