E.4.DPF:4.3 - Create one C.2.1 proposal episteme

The organization proposal uses the present intended-result description as its one EntityOfConcern:

FrameworkOrganizationDesignProposal:
  C2_1Identity:
    entityOfConcernRef: U.EpistemeRef
      = current IntendedFrameworkResultDescription episteme
    claimGraph: U.ClaimGraph
    effectiveReferenceScheme: U.ReferenceScheme
  claimScopeRef: ClaimScopeRef defined by A.2.6
  intendedReaderDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef
  intendedFirstUseDescriptionRef: U.EpistemeRef
  modelUseStructureRef?: U.StructureRef
    only when one selected BoundedModelUseStructure changes interpretation for this use
  empiricalGroundingRelationRefs?: FinSet(U.RelationRef)
    only for separately obtaining C.2.1 empirical-grounding relations

FrameworkOrganizationDesignProposal is a local use label for that exact C.2.1 episteme, not a second U-kind. Its one EntityOfConcern, one constituting ClaimGraph, and one effective ReferenceScheme supply episteme identity. ClaimScope, reader and use descriptions, optional model-use structure, empirical-grounding relations, A.7 provenance, F.15 proposal-status assertions when current, publication, and edition continuity are neighboring claims or relations; none is another identity slot. A changed ClaimGraph, EntityOfConcern, or effective scheme identifies another episteme. A changed grounding relation alone changes that relation, not the proposal identity.

Use F.9 for an exact cross-context local-sense translation with its own endpoints and predicate. Candidate organization claims are typed nodes in the proposal’s ClaimGraph, with logical, alternative, refinement, dependency, support, conflict, and answer-to-question edges as current.

Each candidate organization claim node makes the subject-level proposal recoverable:

FrameworkOrganizationCandidateClaimNode:
  claimNodeKey: semantic key unique within claimGraph
  claimNodeKind: FrameworkOrganizationClaimNodeKindValue
  claimStatus: FrameworkOrganizationClaimStatusValue
  intendedResultAspect: FrameworkOrganizationAspectValue
  describedPositionKinds[1..*]: U.Kind
  proposedSubjectRelationSignatures[0..*]: RelationSignature
  proposedConstraintDescriptionRefs[0..*]: U.EpistemeRef
  coveredRelationFamilyRefKindPairs[0..*]: FrameworkRelationFamilyRefKindPair; cardinality [1..*] for a relation-family coverage constraint node
  admittedFrameworkUseDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef; exactly one for a relation-family coverage constraint node
  coverageCriterionDescriptionRef?: U.EpistemeRef; exactly one for a relation-family coverage constraint node
  proposedInvariantDescriptionRefs[0..*]: U.EpistemeRef
  proposedDependencyDirectionDescriptionRefs[0..*]: U.EpistemeRef
  alternativeGroupKey?: semantic key unique within claimGraph
  designBasisRefs[1..*]: U.EpistemeRef
  designQuestionRefs[1..*]: U.EpistemeRef
  frameworkArchitectureSettlementConditionRef?: U.EpistemeRef

FrameworkRelationFamilyRefKindPair:
  relationFamilyRef: U.EntityRef
  relationFamilyKindRef: U.KindRef

FrameworkOrganizationCandidateClaimNode is a local ClaimGraph node form, not a U-kind and not an episteme. FrameworkOrganizationClaimNodeKindValue is the local C.2.1-compatible enumeration definition | constraint | property | assumption. A node with claimNodeKind=constraint classifies a proposed constraint claim; its proposedConstraintDescriptionRefs[] identify the exact constraint descriptions that the node asserts, while a non-constraint node may cite those refs only when they qualify that definition, property, or assumption.

A relation-family coverage constraint node also has non-empty coveredRelationFamilyRefKindPairs[], one admittedFrameworkUseDescriptionRef, and one coverageCriterionDescriptionRef; other claim nodes leave all three coverage positions absent. Each pair identifies one relation-family value and its exact kind without a union field or untyped companion list. A WorkPlan acceptance target, when current, is cited separately through designBasisRefs[] or its direct acceptance-target relation. Both constraint positions describe the proposed organization. If an obligation, recommendation-as-duty, or prohibition is current, use A.2.8 -> U.Commitment with its actual duty bearer, direct predicate, modality, referents, scope, validity, and instituting basis. A system-role kind or assignment may be an applicability ground; the commitment names its actual duty bearer. If a permission, exercise, non-violation, or permission-conflict claim is current, use the exact A.2.8.PER result with the participants, references, constructive ground, and qualifiers required by that selected object.

FrameworkOrganizationClaimStatusValue is the local enumeration candidateProposed | rejectedAlternative | unresolved. FrameworkOrganizationAspectValue is the local enumeration frameworkFamily | component | dependency | patternRelation | publication | access; a domain extension adds another value only together with its exact interpretation rule in the proposal’s effective ReferenceScheme. Proposedness is claim modality: it says that a relation signature, position, constraint, invariant, or dependency direction is being proposed for the intended result. Actual relation occurrences and actual U.Structure values use their direct admission predicates; a pattern-use boundary condition remains a separate position.

The proposal’s effective ReferenceScheme maps each organization-aspect value, described position kind, and proposed relation signature to claims about the intended result described by the EntityOfConcern; distinguishes ClaimGraph edges from the subject relations those claims propose; declares how basis and design-question refs qualify each claim; and states that claim status is modal rather than actual. Thus a claim node can propose that one pattern family depends on Core, that publication and access remain separate positions, or that one relation invariant is preserved, without pretending that the future framework or those relations already exist.