F.1:5.2 - Minimal worked source cut

The project brief already identifies this receiving question: Can one contribution use “process” for both a workflow description and a performed occurrence? The exact question, not the note or source list, is the SourceCutNote’s EntityOfConcern. The project names its effective ReferenceScheme Workflow and occurrence source cut, August 2026; that scheme fixes the three editions below and the ordinary-English role statements. The intended use stays in the ClaimGraph.

Receiving use: decide which subjects the later pattern must keep distinct.

Retain:
- OMG BPMN 2.0.2 (January 2014), §10.1: its workflow-structure claim changes the design-description side.
- W3C PROV-O Recommendation (30 April 2013), §3.1: its Activity claim supplies the performed-occurrence contrast.
- W3C SOSA/SSN Recommendation (19 October 2017), §4.3.2.2: Observation supplies an action-changing counterexample—an act that follows a Procedure and yields a Result, not a workflow graph.

Exclude for now:
- thermodynamic-process literature: no inspected claim changes this stated use.

Known limit: service commitments are outside this cut.
Reopen if: the use adds physical transformation or service commitments, a relied edition changes the relevant claim, or a known counterexample no longer fits.
Search policy: none needed for this bounded question.

The resulting SourceCutNote is identified by that ClaimGraph, the stated receiving question, and the named reading scheme. Because this cut turns on the difference between a designed workflow and a performed occurrence, the project recovers any disputed process reading through ordinary F.0.1 while inspecting source roles, before stabilizing the cut. It adds an F.17 cell afterward only if later reuse, a claim, a named receiver, or an actual relation needs one.