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.