F.18:10 - SoTA-Echoing

Question and selected answer. How should one already identified value receive a durable name without turning a convenient word into a different object or making every local phrase into a maintained record? Under E.8:11, the best-known answer for this bounded use is a local-first settlement: stop at sufficient ordinary wording; otherwise compare plausible head-term families against the same value and reader situation, keep one Tech/Plain pair, and record why it was chosen and what would reopen it.

Serious alternative. A compact preferred-label entry with alternatives and a scope note is a real low-cost rival, not a careless dictionary substitution. SKOS Reference, lexical labels, documentation, and mapping properties, supplies that comparator and the useful separation of labels, concepts, notes, and mappings. It can carry a careful explanation and does not claim that a shared label proves identity. F.18 does not reject it for lacking FPF field names or require a different storage format.

The remaining choice is about the naming decision. A preferred label and scope note can state what a term means while leaving unclear why a neighbouring head was rejected, whether ordinary wording would suffice, and which later use needs a durable settlement. At the effort of one naming discussion and one short note, F.18 spends attention on those distinctions rather than accumulating more synonyms. The trade-off is a slightly longer decision note, needed only for a reusable name. When a terminology entry already carries the same value, candidate comparison, use boundary, and reopen reason, reuse that content; neither a second naming decision nor corpus-wide normalization is warranted.

Adapt and reject by value. Section 0 and steps 1–3 of section 4 keep the value and ordinary-wording exit before the card. Sections 4.1–4.3 require semantic fidelity before reader familiarity and make candidate coverage and the remaining risk inspectable. Cases 7.1 and 7.2 expose the concrete cost of a short head that confuses a system-role kind with an assignment, capability, Method, or Work; 4.2e compares Reference with instructional and registry readings for one product form. These are semantic countercases, not measured gains in naming speed. Section 7.5 and the public-use branch in 4.4/4.4.1 preserve local wording and test a needed correspondence separately; a label or generic mapping is not authority for that use. Reject choosing by familiarity alone, adding a card for every phrase, or treating a source’s preferred label as the identity or admission rule for the named thing.

Reader ergonomics in 4.3 is therefore a probe on the actual candidate and readers, not a claim that a navigation study has selected an FPF name. A shorter label wins when it preserves the same recovered object and admitted use. C.18 supplies comparison discipline only if Pareto or quality-diversity methods are actually used; it is not independent evidence that this name wins.

Reopen. Compare again if a lighter naming procedure preserves the same object distinctions and later reuse with less effort; if readers still infer the wrong object from the chosen head; or if the actual use needs linguistic or multilingual modeling that the simple settlement does not support. No current catalogue entry, later edition, popularity, or publisher status can discharge that comparison.

Currentness rule: when the pattern containing a value’s direct rule, C.2.1, F.9, A.10, B.3, or E.24.PUB changes the value, card, sense, Bridge, bounded-use claim, reliance, or publication boundary, reopen only the affected invariant, field, case, or check. A future F.17 edition is consumed only through section 4.4; its change does not reopen local NameCards unless their supported public citation use or object references change.