E.24.UK:4 - Solution

Treat durable U-kind admission as a claim-bearing decision about one identified entity, not as a relation between a public name and a settlement and not as a bundle of future members, rules, boundaries, and uses. Select the decision’s EntityOfConcern by the entry rule above; keep the proposed kind criterion, extent, spelling, and use-enabling claims in its ClaimGraph. Record the decision in a DRR or another claim-bearing episteme under E.9; the decision creates no project-side U.Relation occurrence.

Do not fill a second E.24.UK decision card. E.24:4.0a is the sole editable E24FamilySettlementDecision schema. The short view below helps a practitioner find its U-kind fields; it is a read-only projection and cannot omit, weaken, rename, or override any claim required by the shared decision.

A short view is therefore valid only when every displayed answer resolves back to that one shared decision. An inactive field may disappear from the view; a required field may not disappear from the decision. The UKindAdmissionResultRef identifies the result, not the decision episteme. In an atomic decision, the ontic and admission results remain provisional together and neither is evidence for the other.

The shared decision selects exactly one positive form—root, same-individual-dependent, or identity-dependent—or one non-admission exit—reuse, local-kind, or reject. Every positive result cites its durable membership rule and scheme. Same-individual dependence also states the root and the implication to root membership for the same individual. Identity dependence instead cites an already governed relation to a distinct root-kind individual plus every discriminator. The three non-admission exits cite the exact reused kind, local C.3.2 declaration, or recovered non-kind object.

A public Tech label follows the accepted result through F.18 and F.17. Spelling improves retrieval but supplies neither membership nor extent. The decision, its output result, the proposed or admitted kind, and individuals classified by that kind remain different objects.

E.24.UK:4.1 - Positive Test For A Durable U-kind

Test a proposed new durable U-kind against these eight conditions. It may receive root, same-individual-dependent, or identity-dependent only if all eight hold:

1. Governed individuals. The candidate classifies identifiable governed individuals, not source expressions, declaration fields, table columns, reference suffixes, publication forms, or mathematical representation elements.
2. Stable identity or membership. Cite an identity, grounding, recognition, or membership rule that reidentifies individuals and determines whether they enter the intended extent.
3. Reviewable witness. Cite the direct operational test. For a relation-kind candidate, cite the pattern passage that defines the relation; that passage must state participant meanings, obtaining, applicability, and occurrence identity. If no current direct relation closes the claim, an A.6.RCD application may record a derived or primitive candidate with a proposed direct subject settlement; its local-claim and predicate-definition exits are not kind witnesses. Every other candidate cites its direct constructive, classificatory, or membership test. A signature, row, declaration, or mathematical trace counts only when its declaration or defining rule states the correspondence to the governed individuals.
4. Action-facing need. FPF users need to state, compare, constrain, transform, or otherwise reason about those individuals under this kind; a wording preference alone does not qualify.
5. Non-duplication. Existing U-kinds, direct relations, declaration SlotKinds, local C.3 kinds, and selected structures cannot preserve the needed distinction without this durable kind.
6. Defining locus. One primary rule passage or accepted governed source set states the kind’s identity or membership, intended extent, admissible use, and non-use boundary.
7. Shared E.24-family settlement. Fill E.24:4.0a with the subject kind and identity rule, the smallest governed relation set needed by the named use, any identity-bearing relation selected by the current settlement decision, declarations actually reused, direct defining or testing rules, receiving use, and non-use and reopen boundaries. Also cite the durable-membership rule and scheme, the same-individual inclusion law or identity-dependence relation when applicable, and the exact result references. Record whether an additional durable ontic is actually needed. If direct rules suffice, return the direct-use or bounded-coordination disposition and no new ontic result. Only when both new outputs are independently needed does an atomic co-decision return separate provisional outputs without circular premises.
8. By-value dependence. Current or selected downstream uses cite the kind by value rather than only repeating its label.

If any positive-admission condition fails, do not force the candidate into a durable root or dependent form. Select reuse when an admitted durable kind already covers the distinction, local-kind when bounded C.3.2 classification is sufficient, or reject when no classificatory distinction remains. Recover the exact direct relation, declaration component, selected structure, episteme, publication form, representation element, or source wording that carries the current claim. Only after disposition is settled may an author apply F.8, F.5, and F.18 naming criteria and constitute any public F.17 row.

E.24.UK:4.2 - Six Admission Dispositions

The typed AdmissionDisposition has exactly six values:

1. root. The candidate classifies individuals identified by one cited identity or membership rule whose extent and recognition conditions are explicit.
2. same-individual-dependent. The candidate classifies individuals already admitted under one root U-kind. The root pattern keeps individual identity; the dependent pattern adds a stable membership condition and an action-facing use. The accepted settlement also states the implication: if that same individual satisfies the dependent condition, it is a member of the named root kind.
3. identity-dependent. The candidate classifies a distinct individual whose identity cannot be stated without one named root-kind individual. The exact dependence relation between those two individuals and every additional discriminator must already have a defining rule. A holder or root reference without that relation does not close admission.
4. reuse. The needed individuals and distinction are already covered by one admitted durable U-kind. Reuse that exact kind and its cited identity or membership rule; do not admit a duplicate root or dependent kind.
5. local-kind. Record this non-admission exit only with one exact current C.3.2 declaration through LocalKindDeclarationRef. The distinction remains local under the C.3 family and does not become a root or dependent durable U-kind; E.24.UK does not restate the declaration’s internal mechanics.
6. reject. No durable or local classificatory distinction survives recovery. Keep the exact relation, declaration component, selected structure, episteme, publication object, representation element, or source wording that carries the claim. A contingent qualification whose membership is only temporary participation in a relation belongs here; use Plain relation-defined wording when useful.

Only root, same-individual-dependent, and identity-dependent admit the candidate as a durable U-kind. reuse, local-kind, and reject are distinct exits, not weakened dependent admissions.

Read kind, individual, dependence, and part separately:

• U.WorkPlan is a kind name. MaintenancePlan_Q3 is one individual that may be classified by that kind. The name is not the plan individual, and neither is a declaration slot or record field.
• Same-individual dependence adds membership, not another object. C.2.1 first identifies MaintenancePlan_Q3 as one U.Episteme; when A.15.2’s plan-membership predicate holds, that same episteme is also a U.WorkPlan. No second plan individual and no parthood claim follow.
• Identity dependence concerns two distinct individuals joined by a governed relation that contributes to one individual’s identity. A proposed capability individual distinct from its holder would need that relation and a receiving use that requires its continuity. A.2.2 instead states qualified ability about the holder; a holder reference in that assertion supplies no second individual.
• Dependence does not imply parthood. Even if a capability-to-holder dependence relation is governed later, that fact alone does not make the capability a part or characteristic of the holder system. A parthood conclusion needs its own direct part relation under A.1 and that relation’s obtaining rule.

None of a kind name, membership, identity dependence, or parthood follows from another. When the contrast is kind versus instance, say kind, individual, instance, or concrete governed object, not bare value. Reserve slot-filler wording for actual declaration slots and record-field wording for records.

E.24.UK:4.2a - Durable Membership and C.3 Projection

Durable U-kind membership and C.3 classification remain distinct, but C.3 now relies on an admitted meta-kind. E24UK-AR-UKIND-R5-01 admits U.Kind; its individuals are reusable intensional classification distinctions recovered through candidate domain, operative membership condition, intended member/non-member boundary, and continuity rule. A KindSignature, source or practice label, scheme, extension, assertion, or publication is not that kind individual.

For an independently identified candidate x, membership in an admitted durable subject kind K still follows the direct predicate M_K under the accepted settlement. A C.3 U.Kind individual may declare or reuse that predicate for typed reasoning without admitting another public U.* kind. A row, spelling, record, or unresolved evaluation changes neither the direct predicate nor the world-side extent.

E24UK-AR-USUBKINDOF-R5-01 separately admits U.SubkindOf as a same-individual dependent kind under U.Relation. Its individuals are the same relation occurrences already admitted under U.Relation whose exact ordered kind participants satisfy C.3.1’s criterion-entailment branch or exhaustive deliberately closed-domain branch within declared applicability. Scheme and signature editions qualify the obtaining test and assertion; they are not participants or occurrence-identity discriminators.

For any other same-individual-dependent admission, the settlement states M_Kd(x) -> M_Kr(x) and the same individual keeps root identity. For identity-dependent, the cited rule defines or constrains a two-place dependence relation from the distinct dependent individual to one exact root-kind individual and supplies every additional discriminator. A root reference alone closes neither form.

The recovered A.2.2 capability need takes the reject exit in section 4.2c: ordinary holder-ability claims remain usable without a second kind or an invented dependence relation. U.Structure follows the accepted A.22 architecture instead. A.22 identifies one context-independent selected organization from four and only four discriminators: exact independently identified constituents, exact selected obtaining relation occurrences, exact constraints as applied, and one named selection-use frame. E24UK-AR-USTRUCTURE-R12-01 records the root admission. A bounded-context label, system, team, subsystem, model, method, work occurrence, result episteme, description, view, graph, table, representation, publication, or use does not supply that identity.

BoundedModelUseStructure and A.22’s conditional crossing-analysis specialization are same-individual dependent predicates over already identified U.Structure values. The same structure individual keeps its A.22 identity; satisfying the corresponding A.22:4.1c condition adds the specialization and implies U.Structure membership. The bounded-model-use name has a current F.17 row. The crossing-analysis condition is strictly conditional on independently governed exact obtaining crossing occurrences plus all four A.22 base discriminators; because no positive member exists, its NameCard label remains local and pending and is not consumed here as public vocabulary. Neither condition adds a second structure individual, root identity, ambient-context discriminator, holonhood, agency, description identity, or view identity. An A.2.6 claim-scope value or membership fact affects the selection only when an exact applied constraint refers to it; that applied constraint, not the bare scope or membership outcome, occupies the third discriminator. A scope, context, label, view, publication, representation, or selected use alone creates neither the base structure nor specialization membership.

The three A.1.1 relation-kind designations consumed by the bounded-model-use test are current through UTS.ModelApplicabilityRelation.FPFCore.2026-07-25, UTS.ModelUseRelation.FPFCore.2026-07-25, and UTS.ModelExpressionCoherenceRelation.FPFCore.2026-07-25. Those F.17 rows publish only the names. A.1.1 defines each relation; the corresponding passage states its predicate, participants, obtaining condition, and occurrence-identity rule. A row, NameCard, matching token, or appearance in this registry makes no occurrence obtain and grants no BoundedModelUseStructure membership.

A project that needs bounded quantification may use an admitted U.Kind individual through C.3.2. If the kind’s membership criterion cites an already governed durable subject-kind predicate, that projection neither admits another durable kind nor creates an automatic U.SubkindOf fact. A project-specific kind remains an individual of U.Kind without acquiring its own public U.* label; proposing such a label reopens E.24.UK for that subject kind.

E.24.UK:4.2b - Accepted Admission-Result Registry

Each E24UK-AR-* reference identifies one accepted UKindAdmissionResult, not the decision episteme that produced it. The registry is a navigation index. The two R5 admission references resolve to their exact membership results in sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3; the U.Kind ontology disposition is separate from its retained root admission; the bootstrap resolves to E24-CO-UONTIC-BOOT-01 and sibling result E24-OS-UONTIC-BOOT-01. A row marked RG is a reconstructed by-value result whose exact subject-pattern passage and this row together state the disposition, membership test, reliance, and boundary; it does not pretend that a new shared decision was run. No result reference gains a second result by appending a suffix.

Each R5 or bootstrap result is a C.2.1 episteme about the pre-judgment subject construct. Its own ClaimGraph states the exact shared decision reference, disposition, membership or identity basis, subject-pattern locator, branch result, reliance, and non-use/reopen boundary under FPFCoreReferenceScheme. An RG result instead uses the reconstructed basis stated above and carries no fabricated shared-decision or sibling-output reference. The decision episteme has its own ClaimGraph and identity. A consumer relies on the result reference and follows it to the decision when it needs common inputs or decision mode.

RG means reconstructed and grandfathered. The exact result reference, not the row wording, is the reliance point. Every row reopens if its direct membership or identity predicate, intended extent or named reliance, nearest non-use boundary, or shared E.24 settlement law changes; carrier, layout, and spelling changes alone do not reopen it.

E24-CO-UONTIC-BOOT-01 takes the E.24 source construct, shared settlement rule, receiving use, and non-use boundary without presupposing U.Ontic. It returns E24-OS-UONTIC-BOOT-01 and E24UK-AR-UONTIC-BOOT-01; neither the schema, pattern, decision, nor kind thereby becomes an ontology-unit individual.

E.24.UK:4.2c - Open Prerequisites, Blocked Candidates, and Non-admission Results

The shared decision can also encounter public kind names that do not yet have a resolvable accepted admission result. They remain explicit prerequisites rather than being smuggled into the accepted registry. Existing by-value use of an exact current value may continue under its subject pattern, but no new admission may cite the unsettled kind itself as already accepted.

Generic reuse and local-kind are decision exits, not accepted example results. Close reuse only with an exact ReusedUKindRef that resolves to this registry; close local-kind only with one exact current C.3.2 LocalKindDeclarationRef. If either reference is absent, keep the candidate unsettled.

Consumer repair follows the disposition, not one replacement word. Method-description claims retain U.MethodDescription; exact viewpoint and view claims retain U.Viewpoint and U.View only under E.17.0 membership. Every lexical or source use of the rejected spelling U.EpistemePublication is recovered by its claim as the selected U.Episteme, exact EpistemePublicationRelation occurrence, publication form, or U.PresentationCarrier; the rejected kind has no occurrences to retype.

Thus dependent describes an admission and identity architecture. It is not a shorthand for every object named in a record, every participant of a relation, or every qualifier used to interpret an episteme.

E.24.UK:4.2.1 - Accepted Root Settlement For U.Relation

FPF has already admitted U.Relation; project users do not repeat this ontology decision. The root kind classifies individuable obtaining relation occurrences. A direct relation can obtain before a system explicitly individuates, names, describes, or references one occurrence, but admission under this root requires the direct relation pattern to supply an occurrence-identity rule.

The admission does not force explicit materialization of every obtaining relation. Ordinary engineering prose can stop at the direct relation sentence. A system performs explicit-individuation work only when a named receiving episteme, direct relation, or operation-application assertion depends on occurrence identity. The accepted Tech label U.Relation is governed separately through its F.18 NameCard; the label does not establish the extent.

Apply the positive extent rule before classifying a nearby object. Predicate content is a rule; an assertion or occurrence description is a C.2.1 episteme; a designator or reference stays under F.18; a reusable form stays under E.24.PUB; and a row, graph edge, or diagram element stays under C.29. None is the obtaining occurrence. Connect it to the occurrence only through its explicit assertion, description, designation, reference, publication, or representation relation.

The rule is not lexical. An individuable publication-relation occurrence is itself a U.Relation when E.24.PUB defines that relation and states its obtaining and identity conditions. A row that represents the occurrence remains a representation element. Reidentify the current object by the rule that defines or tests it instead of inferring membership from words such as relation, edge, link, record, or reference.

E.24.UK:4.2.2 - Accepted Root Settlement for U.Kind

E24UK-AR-UKIND-R5-01 admits the root U.Kind. Its individuals are reusable intensional classification distinctions, identified through the C.3/C.3.1 candidate domain, operative membership condition, intended member/non-member boundary and continuity rule under FPFCoreReferenceScheme. A signature, source label, scheme, current extension, assertion or publication is not the kind individual. Existing individual subject kinds do not supply this cross-pattern meta-kind.

The root membership result is sufficient for recognizing such kind individuals. It does not require another durable ontology unit. C.3.1 comparison independently uses exact kind identities and the U.SubkindOf predicate; C.3.2 classification independently uses its admissibility and membership rules. Those receiving uses cite their direct rules without deriving them from an empty relation set. If several already defined claims must be read together for a bounded task, a C.2.1 episteme may coordinate them without becoming a durable ontic.

The ontology-disposition decision E24-CO-UKIND-R19-01 selects subject-pattern-use for these named uses and concludes that no additional durable ontic is needed. Its decision and result differ from the originating R5 decision; the root admission and direct identity/membership law remain the same. The exact new decision and unchanged R5 provenance are preserved in the U.Kind settlement decision.

For example, C.3.1 can establish CoolingPumpKind as a subkind of PumpKind when the aligned cooling-pump criterion entails the pump criterion. An extension sample alone cannot do so. C.3.2 can classify an admissible Pump #14 under its actual declaration and slice; a missing required cooling-performance fact yields unknown, while an out-of-domain request is not-applicable before classification. Neither result needs a new ontology unit. A project-specific kind remains an individual of U.Kind without gaining its own durable public U.* name.

Reopen the additional-ontic question when a named dependent use requires persistent nonduplicative coordination beyond those direct rules and supplies a stable subject and positive contribution. Neither admitting the root nor adding SubkindOf merely because it is nearby establishes that need. E.24’s positive EpistemeOntic case retains its independently justified constitution and neighboring-relation coordination.

E.24.UK:4.2.3 - Accepted Same-individual Dependent Settlement for U.SubkindOf

The subject here is the still-unsettled C.3.1 proposal for an ordered kind-participant relation—not U.SubkindOf assumed in advance. The accepted relation occurrence keeps its U.Relation identity and gains the dependent membership only when C.3.1’s obtaining rule holds.

The decision and its two outputs are three distinct C.2.1 epistemes. Each output has the same pre-judgment source construct as EntityOfConcern, its own ClaimGraph consisting of the applicable output claims above plus the exact decision reference, and FPFCoreReferenceScheme. The sibling ontic result is recorded for navigation, not used as prior evidence. Scheme and signature editions qualify interpretation, applicability, and assertions; they are neither participants nor occurrence-identity discriminators.

E.24.UK:4.3 - Practitioner-first Admission Tree

1. Recover the candidates and criterion. Identify the decision subject, candidate individuals, stable membership or identity rule, intended extent, nearest non-member, and named action-facing use. For a relation kind, use the rule that defines its participant meanings, obtaining, applicability, and occurrence identity, and cite the PatternID that locates that rule; an A.6.RCD application may record a derived or primitive candidate only with a proposed direct subject settlement. If no subject or criterion is recoverable, keep the inquiry open.
2. Try an admitted durable kind. If one accepted result already preserves those individuals, the criterion, extent, boundary, and use, record reuse through that exact result and stop.
3. Try bounded classification. If one project or context needs only typed membership or quantification, record local-kind through one exact C.3.2 declaration and stop.
4. Test the need for a new durable kind. Continue only when repeated cross-pattern use needs one stable membership law that existing durable kinds and direct relations cannot preserve. Run the eight tests and name each downstream question, its defining or testing rule, and the PatternID that locates that rule.
5. Choose the positive form. Use root for independently identified individuals, same-individual-dependent when one root individual gains an additional stable membership predicate and inclusion law, or identity-dependent when a distinct individual has an already governed dependence relation to one root individual plus all discriminators. Fill the shared E.24-family decision and separately test the need for additional durable coordination. Direct-rule sufficiency permits positive kind admission with an explicit no-additional-ontic conclusion; use atomic co-decision only when both new outputs are needed. Apply A.11 and A.8 when kernel status is claimed.
6. Close or leave unresolved, then name. Record the positive admission when the selected form passes every condition. A missing branch law or fact leaves admission unresolved. Use reject only when no classificatory distinction survives, and recover the non-kind object under the rule that defines or tests it. Only after one disposition and governed object are stable may F.8, F.5, F.18, or F.17 expose a public name.

The subject pattern remains a locator, not an authority: C.3 states the membership and continuity rules for kinds; A.6.REL states the common relation-occurrence discipline; each direct relation pattern states participant meanings, obtaining, applicability, and occurrence identity; A.6.0/A.6.5 define reusable declarations; E.24 defines ontic-settlement predicates; and F.8/F.5/F.18/F.17 constrain names after ontology is settled.

E.24.UK:4.4 - Source Ontology Conversion Guide

Use this short conversion guide when a source ontology, schema, standard, class hierarchy, or top-level ontology uses words such as type, class, category, object type, entity type, kind, or subtype. BFO-style, ISO-style, OWL/RDF, database-schema, programming-language, and discipline-local type systems are source ontologies or representation regimes; they do not become FPF U.* names by translation.

First recover the source construct by value:

• source name and source ontology or schema;
• source identity rule, membership rule, extent rule, or recognition rule;
• source relations such as is-a, part-of, realizes, participates-in, depends-on, or equivalent local relations;
• intended source use: classification, query, modeling, exchange, validation, reasoning, implementation, or documentation.

Then select the FPF object:

A source “type” may become an FPF kind and may require an ontic, but only after these tests. If the source construct only supplies local classification or exchange syntax, keep it as C.3 typed reasoning, bridge material, representation material, or source wording. Do not create a rival FPF type layer beside durable U-kind governance and E.24 ontic settlement.

E.24.UK:4.5 - Structural Location Rule

A U.* spelling in a pattern title, host filename, monolith heading, or ToC row is stronger than a prose occurrence. Structural locations orient readers to the governed object.

Use this rule:

• Prose occurrence: recover the local claim, the rule that defines or tests it, and that rule’s PatternID locator.
• Table row or record field: recover whether it is one SlotSpec, one assertion or description field, one reusable-form element, or an already governed object.
• Heading: retain U.* only when the section’s primary EntityOfConcern is that object or the heading directly references an already admitted U-kind.
• Pattern title or host filename: retain U.* only when the pattern’s primary EntityOfConcern is that root or dependent U-kind.
• ToC row: retain U.* only when the row points to the passage that carries the accepted settlement; otherwise name the direct governed object or repair the wording with E.10.

Do not keep a false U.* structural name for memory or search convenience. Use a Plain label, local heading, Name Card, Concept-Set row, relation name, record field, or quoted source wording when that is the actual object.

E.24.UK:4.6 - Failed U-kind Admission Dispatch

When positive admission fails, take the first truthful exit: reuse with one accepted result, local-kind with one C.3.2 declaration, or reject with the actual object handled under its defining or testing rule. A participating entity keeps its intrinsic kind; a declaration component stays an A.6.5 SlotSpec; a designation or claim field stays in its episteme; a structure, publication form, or representation stays under A.22, E.24.PUB, or C.29; and a measure or source expression stays with its measurement or wording-use rule. Public naming waits until that recovery is complete.