E.24:4.1 - Check 1: Existing Rule-Content Check

Name the current claim under decision and ask whether an existing exact defining or constraining ClaimGraph already states its rule content.

Use existing rule content first. If the case is method semantics, resolve the defining ClaimGraph located at A.3.1; if it is method description, use A.3.2; if it is mechanism meaning, use A.6.1 and E.20; if it is work planning or dated work, use A.15.2 or A.15.1. For evidence, gate, source, assurance, decision, release, publication, or another case, name the exact current subject assertion and its defining or constraining ClaimGraph, with the pattern id only as locator, before selecting direct rule-content use. If no current rule content can be recovered by value, that disposition is unavailable; use the other E.24 dispositions rather than treating the topic word as authority.

Do not introduce a durable ontic only because several patterns are near each other or because one source word appears often.

For a candidate relation kind, recover the exact participants and test the current direct relations against their exact predicates, assertions, and defining ClaimGraph sources. If one direct relation closes the named dependent-use claim, use that settlement and stop. If none closes it, A.6.RCD may derive the needed claim and return a local-claim, predicate-definition, derived-kind-candidate, or primitive-kind-candidate disposition. A local compound claim or reusable predicate-definition episteme is not a relation kind. A derived-kind candidate proceeds only with a proposed direct subject settlement of its base dependencies, obtaining, applicability, and occurrence identity; a primitive candidate proceeds only with a candidate standalone defining ClaimGraph that supplies its own obtaining and occurrence identity. E.24 uses the direct settlement or A.6.RCD result and does not repeat the derivation method.