F.0.2:4 - Solution
F.0.2:4.1 - Bounded synthesis method
- Name the receiving question and use. State the authoring decision or subject-pattern contribution that may change. Name the practical action and first result under consideration when a pattern contribution is being proposed.
- Recover source-local claims. For every load-bearing source, identify the claim, its EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme, edition, source role, and the context in which the claim is used. Apply
F.0.1; useF.9only when the comparison asserts a relation between exact cross-context SenseCells. - Choose a bounded source cut. Apply
F.1. Include the sources needed for the intended use, known rival explanations, action-changing counterexamples, transfer limits, and material non-fit. State why each selected source can change the decision. - Compare what changes action. Compare concepts, relation participants, explanations, contexts, assumptions, source roles, counterexamples, losses, and validity limits. Treat lexical or model correspondences as proposals to inspect, not as conclusions. Use B.5.TC when the difference between theoretical accounts needs a constructed comparison: work the same question in each, locate the consequential difference and retain complementary or unresolved contributions.
- Write one first result. Write a provisional synthesis claim when a positive shared contribution is warranted; a contrast claim when the proposed unification is not warranted for the named use; or an unresolved-inquiry claim when a named source gap prevents either substantive answer.
- Give the result a stable local locator and name its receiving decision. Keep ordinary
C.2.1claim identity. Add a stable locator within the authoring source, such asSE-CS-03, so later text can cite the same result together with that source edition. Name the content, placement, or pattern-allocation decision that will consider it. - Record the receiving disposition. When the named decision is made, its decision record states whether this result is used as proposed, revised into a newly identified claim, not used for the named purpose, or reopened for further comparison. Cite the result locator and source edition. A result awaiting that decision remains a proposal; silence or a citation is not acceptance.
- Keep the source use revisable. Identify the source claims and editions relied on, why each matters to this result, what was deliberately left local or rejected, and which change reopens the comparison.
Stop after one bounded synthesis slice when it answers the named authoring question. Enter clustering, Concept-Set, naming, UTS, or heavy harvesting only when the next question requires that additional result.
F.0.2:4.2 - Source-basis branches
| Source situation | Authoring move | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| An admitted maintained synthesis already integrates a field | Recover every occurrence that can change the receiving question. Follow its cited sources where a load-bearing distinction or limit depends on them, and compare current alternatives that could change the answer. | The synthesis is a valuable conceptual map, not independent confirmation of its own integrated claims. |
| Several independent sources answer the question | Give each source an explicit role: proposed contribution, rival explanation, counterexample, boundary, evidence limit, or current alternative. | A reading list or source count does not establish coverage or relevance. |
An identified G.2 pack already exists | Reuse its identified source claims, editions, alignment records, and provenance when they answer the bounded question. | Pack conformance, a fusion record, or a coverage measure does not establish the receiving-framework claim. |
| An earlier DPF supplies a lesson | Classify the lesson as direct FPF reuse, a bounded FPF improvement proposal, or a domain/local claim retained in the receiving DPF. | Precedent does not create ecosystem law or prescribe package shape. |
| A derived lookup proposes FPF or DPF contributions | Return each result to the authoritative pattern body and edition. Report a partial result when a source is unavailable, stale, or incompletely indexed, and widen the search when a known contribution is absent. | A lookup result aids discovery; non-return is not evidence that a contribution is absent. |
F.0.2:4.3 - Three result branches
Every result recorded for later authoring, review, or decision use is an ordinary claim-bearing episteme under C.2.1. Its identity remains <claim content, EntityOfConcern, effective ReferenceScheme>. Give every such result a stable local locator in its authoring source and cite that locator together with the source edition. The locator helps readers recover the claim but does not identify it by itself.
| Result | What the claim concerns | What it says | Required receiving disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provisional synthesis claim | The proposed domain or pattern contribution, interpreted through the receiving scheme and the declared source-local correspondences used in the comparison. | A positive cross-source claim with scope, source roles, retained differences, and limits. Provisional means proposed for a later decision, not accepted framework meaning. | The named decision record cites the locator and source edition, then states that the proposal is used as written, revised into a newly identified claim, not used for the named purpose, or reopened. |
| Contrast claim | The candidate unification or proposed shared contribution being tested, interpreted through the receiving scheme and the source-local comparison rules. | Why the inspected comparison does not warrant that unification for the named use. It preserves the source-local claims and any narrower positive claim that remains supported. | The named decision record cites the locator and source edition, then keeps the source claims distinct for the named use, adopts a narrower or revised claim, does not use the contrast, or reopens the comparison. |
| Unresolved-inquiry claim | The bounded inquiry state, interpreted through the receiving scheme and the source-currentness, adequacy, and comparison rules actually available. | A named missing, stale, or too-weak source prevents the inquiry from choosing between a provisional synthesis and a contrast. It states what remains usable and the next source action; it does not assert that the disputed claim is false. | The named decision record cites the locator and source edition, then retains the bounded unresolved result and its usable remainder, commissions the named source action, ends the named use, or reopens the comparison. Any later substantive answer is a separately identified result. |
The source gap is the reason and closure condition for an unresolved-inquiry claim, not a fourth result branch. A temporary unrecorded pause is not an F.0.2 result that later work can cite.
F.0.2:4.4 - Bounded method and broad SoTA-pack method
Use F.0.2 for one ontology-to-subject-pattern question whose smallest useful result is one of the three claims above. Use G.2 when a CG-Frame needs a broad, refreshable harvesting surface with a CorpusLedger, Claim Sheets, palette, inventories, alignment records, examples, and declared G.3-G.5 handoffs.
The methods combine in one direction. An author may use identified claims and provenance from a G.2 pack as inputs here. The author must still compare retained differences, limits, receiving use, and reopen conditions before writing an F.0.2 result. The bounded comparison does not require the rest of the pack when the question does not use it.
F.0.2:4.5 - Boundary to wording-use precision restoration
Semantic synthesis and wording restoration both pass through ontology, but they answer different questions. Semantic synthesis forms or revises a cross-source claim. Wording restoration starts from an already current subject claim and repairs a consequential wording use so that the intended entity, relation, claim kind, and admissible action can again be recovered.
A recurring wording failure may supply evidence that a subject distinction is missing or unstable. The system maintaining the affected FPF or DPF edition then uses that evidence in a named content decision. The findings do not themselves revise the synthesis claim. A DPF keeps its domain wording entries beside the domain patterns that use them; E.10.ARCH supplies the shared restoration method.
A DPF may need a reliable current domain ontology so practitioners can recognize situations, distinguish Methods and results, and use its solution moves. An author can use F.0.2 to synthesize or revise that ontology as a proposed contribution. Ontology alone is not a DPF: use E.4 and E.4.DPF to connect it to recurring problems, constructive Methods, a usable first cut, evidence practice, access, and maintenance.
F.0.2:4.6 - Semantic and methodological results
A semantic result explains what may be claimed, which distinctions matter and where source accounts agree or differ. It can include claims about actions and Methods. Methodological synthesis constructs ways of acting: selecting, adapting and connecting operations, their conditions, intermediate results and returns for a needed use. The difference concerns the question and what is constructed, not nouns versus verbs or the document in which the result is written.
Use C.39 to construct, connect, explain or change ways of obtaining the needed results. E.4.CM applies that general methodological work to a framework author’s public account of one composite Method or several independent Methods. Those constructions can use the semantic result returned here; trying a proposed way can expose a missing distinction or reopen source comparison. Neither operation requires completing a universal ontology before acting. A sufficient existing Method can be used directly.