F.1:1 - Problem frame

Use this when. A current question needs source material, but you do not yet know where to find it, which words its sources use, or whether the available access reaches the needed passage. Use :4.4 to obtain inspectable candidate material with its consequential search and access limits. A catalogue reference, familiar phrase or ranked fragment may be a useful lead while still omitting the condition that changes the answer.

When candidate sources are already inspectable and more than one may change the answer, use :4.2 to justify the smallest sufficient source cut. Ask how each exact source and edition can change the answer or its limits, and retain the distinct contributions that matter. Finding and source selection can be used separately: a sufficient known source can answer directly, and a justified cut can start without a new search.

The source-selection branch returns one SourceCutNote : U.Episteme. Before treating the note as that episteme, identify the receiving question as one exact project entity. That question is the note’s EntityOfConcern; the intended use remains in the ClaimGraph rather than becoming a second subject. Name the effective U.ReferenceScheme explicitly: it must resolve the question, the cited source-edition designators, and the answer-changing role claims. The ClaimGraph also names deliberate exclusions, known limits or source gaps, and reopen conditions. If the question or scheme is still missing, keep an ordinary working note and return that missing value instead of claiming a C.2.1 episteme. A one-screen source note may represent the same episteme when it carries the same claims; its compact form neither admits a source nor contains its local meaning.

What this buys. You can reach material under unfamiliar wording, explain what the available search could have missed, and return passages whose contribution to the current question can be inspected. Later term recovery, comparison, synthesis or direct source use can then begin from a reason for each source rather than from one influential canon, a bibliography quota, a domain label or an opaque search score.

Not this pattern when. If one already identified source closes the question, use its claim directly or use F.0.1 for one source-local meaning. Use F.9 for an actual relation between recovered local senses and F.0.2 for a bounded conceptual comparison or synthesis. Use G.2 for a broader refreshable SoTA pack. When the receiving work requires an exhaustive, protocol-defined, or appraisal-bearing evidence review, use its domain method; F.1 does not replace that search, appraisal, or reporting discipline. Building or maintaining an access system is a separate engineering question; this pattern uses the finding means already available.

Primary results. Finding returns inspectable candidate material, why it matters, and consequential search or access limits; it may instead return the precise missing material. A passage with a short explanation can suffice; no special record is required. Source selection returns one question-relative SourceCutNote. Neither result establishes source truth, applicability, completeness, reliance or assurance.