F.18:4.4.1 - Cross-Projection Use and Reliance

Open this branch only when one named reuse must relate different <ReferenceScheme, LocalSenseClaim> projections. Compare the exact F.17 cells. Another expression under the same projection is a designation question and gets no Bridge. Different projections open the F.9 question; a different scheme is only one way projections can differ and proves no relation. Test the F.9 predicate and cite a Bridge only when it actually obtains. With no current correspondence use, create no Bridge or use claim regardless of scheme count.

State the proposed naming use in a separate current C.2.1 claim whose EntityOfConcern is that Bridge. Record the action, direction, correspondence rule, tolerated loss, and polarity.

For an affirmative named-use claim, recover the independently established direct evidence relations and their descriptive A.10 evidence-provenance account. RelianceDisposition=pass supports only this bounded use and requires the evidence demanded by the claim and its direct rule. Use B.3 only when an actual named assurance claim is current. If a direct rule requires such a claim and it is missing, return assurance-needed and recover that claim before opening B.3; materiality alone creates neither a claim nor a positive result. A failed or non-passing claim or reliance stops or narrows the use. Neither route authorizes the use or proves that it occurred.

If the reuse did occur, recover its actual Work under A.15.1, assertion episteme under C.2.1, publication occurrence under E.24.PUB, direct relation under its own predicate, operation application under A.6.1, or other exact result under its direct rule. Name a BoundedModelUseStructure only when that selected structure changes the sense or naming use. Until the Bridge, separate claim, and required reliance are current, keep the names local or record the unresolved alignment. A reference-scheme or model-use-structure difference alone supplies neither a premise nor governed-value identity.