E.24:1 - Problem Frame

Some FPF objects are small enough to define through one direct relation ClaimGraph. Others become candidates for a durable ontic when several direct relations and rule-content loci need persistent coordination across dependent use. U.Episteme is the central example: correct reuse depends on keeping its identity, components, direct relations, dependent same-individual episteme kinds, descriptions, and publication-side relations coherent without treating a card field, RelationSignature, or C.29 representation as the episteme itself.

The same failure recurs elsewhere. A project label such as algorithm, process, model, architecture, service, quality, time, rhythm, change, or source can point to several FPF objects. Choosing a better word does not recover those objects. Introducing one umbrella kind fuses entities and relations that already have defining or constraining ClaimGraph sources. The decision method described here tests whether a durable ontology unit is needed and which direct relations make it useful.