F.0.2:1 - Problem frame

Use this pattern when several sources describe the same working question through materially different concepts, relations, explanations, or boundaries, and those differences can change a named authoring decision or a contribution to one subject pattern.

Here semantic synthesis means comparing and developing claims through the concepts, relations and boundaries used by their sources. Conceptual synthesis names this semantic work; it can concern theories of action as well as other subject matters. The primary concern is one bounded semantic-synthesis question for one declared receiving use. The first useful move is to state that question and the difference that could change the next decision. Keep each source claim local through F.0.1, choose the source cut through F.1, then compare the claims here.

What goes wrong if missed. An author either leaves a crosswalk or literature narrative where a positive contribution is needed, or merges similar words before checking whether the sources describe the same entity, relation, explanation, and use. A large research package may also be demanded for a question that one bounded comparison can settle.

What this buys. The author can turn heterogeneous source ontologies into one reviewable result: a provisional synthesis claim, a contrast claim, or an unresolved-inquiry claim. When a pattern contribution is proposed, the result also states the practitioner action, first useful result, and later content decision that may accept, change, reject, or reopen it.

Not this pattern when. Cite one source directly when one source claim closes the question. Use F.1 alone when only source selection is current; F.0.1 when only local meaning is unclear; F.9 when one relation between already recovered cross-context senses is current; and the subject pattern when it already supplies the needed action and result. Use G.2 instead when the work needs a broad, refreshable SoTA Synthesis Pack@CG-Frame and its downstream Part G handoffs.